Abode law not Beijing's business, top court told

The Court of Final Appeal should not seek Beijing's interpretation of the Basic Law provision regarding residency because the matter does not concern the relationship between the central Government and the SAR, the court heard yesterday.

Barrister Gladys Li, SC, for three-year-old abode claimant Chong Fung-yuen, said the interpretation of Article 24(2)(1), which set out qualifications for permanent residency, fell within the jurisdiction of Hong Kong.

She said it therefore was unnecessary for the court to refer the relevant provision to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress before ruling on the status of the boy.

The Government has argued the referral should be made under Article 158(3) of the Basic Law because the interpretation of the relevant provision concerns affairs that are the responsibility of the central Government or concern the relationship between Beijing and the SAR.

Joseph Fok SC, for the Director of Immigration, has submitted that every article in the Basic Law could be open to interpretation by the Standing Committee if they passed a series of tests.

But he told the court yesterday there were many articles in the Basic Law that fell within the autonomy of the SAR.