CLAIMS that functional constituency elections violate the Bill of Rights were rejected by Governor Chris Patten yesterday.
Speaking at the first meet-the-public session since his second policy speech, Mr Patten said legal advice from the Attorney-General and two members of the Executive Council supported his argument.
He was responding to questions from a member of the audience who said Mr Patten's retention of the functional constituency system placed in doubt his commitment to democracy.
Human rights groups have criticised functional constituency elections - in which members of professional groupings elect a representative - because their limited franchise gives some members of society an additional vote.
A representative from a grassroots pressure group, the United Ants, said: ''We have written to you to ask for the disclosure of legal advice and you wrote back to us without disclosing the source. How can we continue our discussion with you with such a reply?'' Quoting the source of his legal advice, Mr Patten said: ''I have taken the advice in good part and attempted, as far as I can, to put forward proposals which make our functional constituency system as fair as it possibly could be.'' But his argument was rejected by the chairman of the Human Rights Commission, Anthony Chiu Sin-wing, who said the elections were in fundamental contradiction with the Bill of Rights' guarantee that every individual should be entitled to equal rights in elections.
Mr Chiu said an individual court hearing should be held to decide if the elections contradicted the bill.
Mr Patten acknowledged that his hands were tied.