 放大圖片
■高等法院原訟庭月初就外傭爭取居留權的司法覆核案作出裁決，裁定《入境條例》違反《基本法》。資料圖片
Case regarding foreign domestic helpers has serious consequences and the mistaken ruling must be rectified
高等法院原訟庭月初就外傭爭取居留權的司法覆核案作出裁決，裁定《入境條例》違反《基本法》。外傭居權案事關重大，一是涉及要不要尊重《基本法》立法原意的問題；二是涉及引發數十萬外傭及家屬湧港，本港公共資源無法承受的問題。社會主流意見除支持政府提出上訴外，還要求政府尋求人大釋法。政府應未雨綢繆，一旦上訴失敗，應在適當時機提請人大釋法，以徹底解決問題。
《基本法》於1985年起草時，中英聯合聯絡小組討論居港權定義並達成共識，有關共識體現於特區籌委會在1996年8月10日通過的《關於實施〈中華人民共和國香港特別行政區基本法〉第二十四條第二款的意見》(簡稱《意見》)之中，後來再由臨時立法會在回歸前的「午夜立法」修改《入境條例》，指明外傭與非法入境、逾期居留、被法院判監及擔任外國領事等人士，留港時間都不會用來計算申請居港權所需的7年年期。這充分體現了《基本法》有關居港權條款的立法原意。原訟庭裁決違反《基本法》立法原意，並將對本港各項公共政策帶來巨大衝擊，因此其錯判必須糾正。
The Court of First Instance of the High Court made a decision early this month on the judicial review of the right of abode claimed by foreign domestic helpers. The ruling of the court was that the Immigration Ordinance has contravened the Basic Law. This case regarding the right of abode of foreign domestic helpers is a matter of serious consequences. Firstly, it concerns the issue of whether the legislative intent behind the drafting of the Basic Law has to be respected. Secondly, the ruling may lead to an influx of tens of thousands of foreign domestic helpers and their families into Hong Kong, causing a burden that Hong Kong public resources cannot bear. The mainstream opinion, besides supporting the government to appeal, also urges the government to seek an interpretation of the Basic Law by the National People's Congress. The government should prepare for the worst and in due course request an interpretation by the National People's Congress once it loses the appeal so that the problem can be solved once and for all.
When the Basic Law was drafted in 1985, the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group had discussed the definition of the right of abode and reached a consensus. The consensus was incorporated into the Opinion on the Implementation of Article 24(2) of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China (the Opinion) passed on 10 August 1996. Later, the Provisional Legislative Council amended the Immigration Ordinance in a mid-night legislation just before the resumption of sovereignty. It was specified that the period of stay in Hong Kong by foreign domestic helpers, illegal immigrants, overstayers, persons sentenced to imprisonment by a court and foreign consulates would not be counted into the seven year period of ordinary residence in Hong Kong, which is a prerequisite for applying for the right of abode. This is a clear expression of the legislative intent behind the definition of the right of abode in the Basic Law. The ruling by the Court of First Instance is inconsistent with the legislative intent of the Basic Law, and will create tremendous impact to the public policies of Hong Kong. Therefore, the mistaken ruling must be rectified.
■Translation by 東明
tungming23@gmail.com
逢周五見報
|
放大圖片
