The Hong Kong Basic Law in Comparison With the Constitutions of Other Countries - Essay Example

1 COMPARE THE HONG KONG BASIC LAW WITH THE CONSTITUTIONS OF OTHER COUNTRIES Introduction In ancient times, Hong Kong which is composed of Hong Kong Island, Kowloon, Stonecutter’s Island or Lan Tau Island, the New Territories and 203 outlying islands, belonged to imperial China. It was at that time a rocky, barren territory which China cannot make anything out of. It was of historical value only when the last emperor of China, a young lad belonging to the Sung Dynasty, reputedly leaped to his death along with his remaining adviser in the rocky promontory of the Kowloon peninsula. Hong Kong’s promise was uncovered by the imagination of a British captain named Charles Elliot who in 1841 made a landing on its territory (Ingham 2007, p. xviii). Without hesitation, Elliot raised the British flag and claimed possession of the island in and behalf of the British crown. In 1842, the Qing Dynasty was compelled by UK’s victory in the First Opium War to cede Hong Kong Island to Britain in perpetuity. The Treaty of Nanking was followed by the Treaty of Peking (the former Beijing) which ceded Kowloon peninsula to the British by virtue of its victory in the Second Opium War. This was followed by China’s 99 year lease of the New Territories and 203 outlying islands to Britain in 1898. What China cannot discern, Elliot and the other pioneering Britons can conjure because they were able to contemplate on its deep, sheltered harbor an immeasurable asset that promises a million things including foreign international trade possibilities (Carroll 2007, p. 1). And they were right on target because quickly and even to the surprise of the Chinese political leaders they were able to transform Hong Kong into a prosperous, industrial and financial center (Tsang 2007, p. ix). This was also 2 achieved through the industry and entrepreneurship of a population that is 98% Chinese, who combined the spartan discipline of the quintessential Chinese with the cosmopolitan outlook and modern way of life and core values that are unmistakably British and European. With this and the effective administration of an efficient and tested British governance, Hong Kong today, has become the world’s biggest container port and one of the world’s biggest textile exporters. Moreover, it has developed such a massive foreign trade that is almost twice that of China (Lye 1996, p.80). In 156 years of British administration, Hong Kong has been entrenched as a global financial metropolis finding its mark as the world’s 13th highest GDP per capita with a GDP per capita of $42,000 as of 2007 (CIA, The World Factbook 2008). Not only that, the Hong Kong cinema enjoyed unprecedented success that rivaled that of Bollywood and has showcased such talents as Jackie Chan and Chow Yun-Fat. However, in 1982 panic was engendered among Hong Kong residents resulting to emigration to Canada (especially Vancouver), USA, UK and to other non-communist countries. The cause of the alarm was the specter of a handover of sovereignty by the British government of Hong Kong to the authoritarian regime of the People’s Republic of China, which did not sit well with many capitalistic Chinese entrepreneurs. The stimulus was provided by the signing between Britain’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and China’s premier Den Xiaoping, of the Sino-British Joint Declaration as well as the British accession of Deng Xiaoping’s ‘One Country, Two Systems’ principle. The panic culminated with that bleak day termed as Black Saturday on September 24, 1983 wherein Hong Kong was enveloped in a banking and fiscal crisis consisting of the all-time decline of the Hong Kong dollar to HK $9.6 to US $1. The uncertain fluctuation in domestic currency was a cause of concern for everybody. 3 But the crux of the problem that sent blood pressures soaring high in both Britain and Hong Kong was the signing of the Sino-British Joint Declaration on December 19, 1984. It was a landmark agreement whereby UK released from its governance Hong Kong and handed it to the Chinese government in a silver platter, so to speak. The Chinese government meanwhile, accepted the “resumption of its sovereignty over Hong Kong”. To calm down nerves though was the provision that the Hong Kong capitalist system and its way of life would stay unaltered for 50 years and that the Chinese socialist system and communist ways would not be exercised at all in Hong Kong territories. Many in UK were astounded by this act which they deemed a cowardly capitulation to the Chinese. But commentators hastily provided the explanation that UK was cornered into a no-win situation. It was not prepared to defend Hong Kong from any Chinese incursion and it cannot substitute China’s role of being the provider of food, water and other basic needs to Hong Kong residents. Besides if it is adamant to refuse the Chinese wishes, the real estate property market would certainly collapse. This and the fact that it just cannot divide the leased New Territories from Kowloon, Hong Kong Island, Lan Tau island and the other 203 outlying islands, gave UK no other recourse but to accede to the constitution of Hong Kong as the new Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China. The Hong Kong Basic Law One of the offshoots of the Sino-British Joint Declaration was the provision that the aforesaid basic policies be stipulated in a constitutional document that is to be designated as the Hong Kong Basic law. This was meant to replace the former governing constitution of colonial Hong Kong which were the Royal Instructions and the Letters Patent. This was intended to take effect on July 1, 1997, the day of the handover of Hong Kong to Chinese hands. 4 What is most commendable about the Hong Kong Basic Law is that there is continuity of the democratic legal system under the British rule. To give due credit where the credit is due, the socialist Chinese should be lauded for respecting a legal system that is a complete antithesis of their own legal system. Thus they allowed article 8 to take effect, which assures that the status quo re the legal system be maintained i.e. the common laws, ordinances, subordinate legislations, rules of equity and even customary laws be retained. This is in fact the spirit of the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ principle asserted by Deng Xiaoping. The only fly in the ointment is contained in article 158, which vests the power to interpret the Basic Law in the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (Wacks 2001, p. 132)., which furthermore has the power to decide as to which specific laws contravene the Basic Law and the power to amend such laws. The question of Hong Kong’s real autonomy, is further eroded by a provision which gives the Beijing government the power to appoint Hong Kong’s chief executive (He, Galligan & Inoguchi 2007, p.20). This is in contravention to article 45, which provides that the Chied Executive be elected by means of universal suffrage. Hong Kong residents have also been hounded by images of the 1989 massacre at Tiananmen Square and other scenes of brutalities and violations of human rights to suppress dissidence and contrary beliefs, the most vivid example being the brutalities in Tibet. To allay these fears, article 28 was inserted which gave to Hong Kong residents freedom from arbitrary or unlawful arrest, detention or imprisonment and unlawful body searches and seizures. Furthermore, the article prohibits torture as well as any unlawful deprivation of life. Hong Kong however, had been racked by massive protests triggered by China’s proposed anti-subversion law based on article 23, which in essence gives to the HKSAR or Hong Kong 5 Special Administrative Region the power to enact laws in order to dampen any possible “act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People’s Government” (Article 23). The intensity of the rallies and protests resulted to the indefinite shelving of the proposed enactment. Several commentators have remarked that China has allowed all these freedoms that are comparable to that of western countries because it doesn’t want to adversely affect Hong Kong’s economy, which is to it the goose that lays the golden egg. Furthermore, it desires to use Hong Kong as a model of governance for Taiwan. China realizes that in order to win over Taiwan as its next province, the latter has to be assured that China will not roil Taiwan’s present legal and administrative system and foist its own authoritative system against Taiwan’s will. China must show to Taiwan that like Hong Kong it will utilize the same “One Country, Two Systems’ principle (Boland 2008). Is the Hong Kong Basic Law a Constitution? Perusing and analyzing the Hong Kong Basic Law, we immediately jump to the conclusion that it must indeed be a constitution. It has all the formal characteristics of a constitution. It has a preamble which identifies its purposes or goals. It presents a specific structure of government. It divides the government into executive, legislative and judiciary and assigns to each department specific functions that ensure separation of powers disallowing any functional clash among these departments. It also delineates all the powers that the government are allowed to do and in correlation with that, all actions that the government are prohibited to do. These latter acts are called limitations of power. In a nutshell, a constitution must have a system of self-government and a rule of law. In summary, all the ingredients of the constitution are possessed by the Hong Kong Basic Law. But is it really in essence a constitution? 6 To answer the above question, we must first define what a constitution is. A constitution is “a settled arrangement by which a country’s parts or elements, within a geographical district combine themselves because of some common traits or particular features of mind or character of those in the combined group (a country) and which distinguishes it from other combined groups (other countries)” (Landry 2003). From the definition, we immediately notice that constitution pertains to a country and not to a province, district or an administrative region of a country. Since the Hong Kong Basic Law is a system of governance that governs a special administrative region of the People’s Republic of China and not China itself, then it cannot be a constitution. The Sino-British Joint Declaration was crystal clear in declaring Hong Kong to be a part of China. Therefore for China, there will only be one constitution and this is the China Constitution of 1982 and not the Hong Kong Basic Law. It is also subject to control by China’s National People’s Congress and thus cannot claim to be fully independent and autonomous. The above Congress may in the future alter it or eradicate it completely after its 50-year limit has elapsed. As David Clark has expressed “while constitutive of the major organs of government and while it lays down the major policies to be followed by the future HKSAR, the Basic Law is an enactment of the National People’s Congress. As such it may be changed by the same body” (Wesley-Smith 1994, p.100). Besides, the Hong Kong Basic Law’s legislative process is under constant and effective control by China and the “latter can, by another piece of legislation, nullify the whole document” (Tsang 2007, p. 48). The Basic Law then is nothing more than a domestic legislation which derives its power from the constitution of China. 7 Comparison of the UK Constitution with the Hong Kong Basic Law While the Hong Kong Basic Law is an over-extended replica of the US Constitution and thus is most similar to it, the Basic Law is a world apart from the UK Constitution. In reality, there is no such thing as one codified, comprehensive, written British Constitution rather such putative constitution is a series of written statutes that are the products of the enactments of both the House of Lords and the House of Commons, together called the British Parliament. These enactments are called Acts of Parliament. Together with all the decisions of the courts (termed as stare decisis); important treaties that have been incorporated as part of domestic laws as enacted by the Parliament; parliamentary constitutional conventions that arise even way down olden days; royal prerogatives which are collections of powers related to the sovereign monarchs and which are without statutory basis; and authoritative works by constitutionalists such as May, Dicey and Bagehot and other constitutional and legal pundits Because there is no such written and unified documented constitution as we are familiar with in modern times, the British constitution has been deemed as de facto constitution and thus opposite to that of the Hong Kong Basic Law which is documented to the last detail. Unlike the Basic Law, which doesn’t rely on historical enactments, the said UK constitution evolved through centuries and is a product of continuous development extending over some 900 years. Even the ancient Magna Carta leaves a mark in UK’s modern constitution as new laws are built on foundation of older laws. While the Basic Law follows the usual concepts and characteristics of a constitution, the purported UK Constitution resists stereotyping and is marked by unconventionalism. At the heart 8 of this unique trait is the Doctrine of Parliamentary Supremacy and Sovereignty (Chen et al 2000, p. 79). The Doctrine of Parliamentary Supremacy means that there is no court competent enough to probe the legality or validity of Acts of Parliament because that reigns supreme and prevails over anything else. Such principle is deemed as “the most fundamental rule of English constitutional law” (de Smith & Brazier 1989, p. 64). The Doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty on the other hand, denotes that all the statutes enacted by the bicameral Parliament comprise Britain’s ultimate source of law (Manuel v Attorney General, 1982 case). Hong Kong can never apply these doctrines because it is not parliamentary. Instead, it has its Legislative Council. Another point of difference between the Basic Law and the UK Constitution is that the latter is founded on a balanced union of the monarchy, the aristocracy and democracy. All three checks and balances each other by this theory called “Checks and Balances” (Bagehot & Taylor 2001, p. 5). But like the Basic Law, the British Constitution subscribes to the principle of an executive, legislative and judiciary branches that are independent from each other, which independence is in adhrence to the separation of powers principle. Very unlike the Basic Law, which can only be amended after 50 years, the UK Constitution is vulnerable to changes. By simply passing new Acts of Parliament, the Parliament causes the current constitution to be modified. Another difference is that in the Basic Law, the government is in the hands of a Chief Executive. In the British Constitution, the monarch holds the nominal executive authority, which is however exercised by the Prime Minister and the other ministers. 9 Table 1. Comparison between the Hong Kong Basic Law and the US Constitution US CONSTITUTION HONG KONG BASIC LAW 3 main branches of gov’t. i.e. executive, legislative & judiciary Also has 3 branches of gov’t. ececutive, legislative & judiciary Federal system of government divided into states Non-federal system; HK divided into Kowloon, Hong Kong Is., Lan Tau Is., New Territories, outlying islands Adopted on Sept. 17, 1787 by the Constitutional convention in Philadelphia, PA Adopted on April 4, 1990;based on Sino-British Joint Declaration & One Country, Two Systems principle. Amended 27 times, the 1st 10 amendments being known as the Bill of Rights Can only be amended after 50 years Legislative power vested in Congress, composed of lower house (House of Representatives) & Senate (upper house) Legislative power vested in Legislative Council which enactments must be reported to Standing Committee of Nat’l. People’s Congress which may annul them. Executive power vested in President who must be a natural born citizen, at least 35 years old & resident for at least 14 yrs. Executive power vested in Chief Executive who is appointed by CPG (Central People’s Gov’t.;must be Chinese citizen, at least 40 yrs. old;& resident of HKSAT for at least 20 yrs. Vice-President succeeds President who dies, is removed or incapacitated Art. 53 provides that Administrative Secretary, Financial Secretary or Sec. of Justice may take over;resigned Chief Exec. must be replaced within 6 months. Judicial Power vested in Supreme Court & other lower courts Judicial Power vested in Court of Final Appeal & other lower courts Judicial review-Supreme Court has power to review;court of last resort;has right to interpret provisions of the constitution Court of Final Appeal-the final arbiter (art.82); Art.158 gives to Standing Committee of NPC the right to interpret HK Basic Law Amendment of constitution by 2/3 vote of quorum of Senate & House & by national convention Chap. 8-amendment only by Standing Committee of NPC 6th amendment-right to speedy public trial for criminal offenses; trial by jury Art. 87-right to fair trial (by jury) & w/out delay & presumption of innocence 8th amendment-right vs cruel & unusual punishments Art. 28(2)-Torture or any unlawful deprivation of life shall not be consented to. 22nd amendment-limits president to 2 terms Chief executive has 5-year term of office;limited to not more than 2 consecutive terms (art. 46) 26th amendment-citizens 18 yr or above are allowed to vote Art. 26-Permanent residents of HKSAR have right to vote & be voted for. Equal Rights Amendment-equality of rights under the law Art. 25-All HK residents are equal before the law Grants citizenship to all born in USA or born or naturalized in US & subject to jurisdiction Citizens are Chinese residents born in HK or who have resided continuously for 7 yrs or more;or whose parents are HK residents;also non-Chinese who resided in HK for 7 yrs or more & w/ valid travel documents Free exercise clause;Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof Art.32 endows HK residents freedom of conscience & religious belief& freedom to preach&to participate & conduct in public religious activities Taxing & spending clause-gives the federal gov’t. of USA the power of taxation Art. 108-provides a low tax policy;provides that HKSAR shall practice in independent taxation system Militia Clause-Congress is delegated the power to call up, organize arming & disciplining of militia Art. 14-HKSAR has the onus of maintaining public order in its territory;but it may ask help from CPG for maintenance of public order. Treaty Clause-President of USA can make treaties with other countries after getting consent of majority in US senate Art. 13-Central People’s Gov’t (CPG) is responsible for foreign affairs of HKSAR War Powers Clause-vests in Congress the sole power to declare war CPG has lone power to conduct defense of HK (Art. 14) US Constitution does not specify right to engage in academic research etc. These rights fall under non-abridgement of the privileges or immunities. Art. 34-to HK residents the right to engage in academic research, literary & artistic creation & other cultural activities US Constitution is silent on right to social welfare.This is conferred in labor laws. Art. 36 bestows the right to social welfare, incl. welfare benefits, retirement;labor security US const. is silent on freedom to marry Art. 37-freedom of marriage &raise family 12 Comparison of Canadian Constitution with Hong Kong Basic Law Like the British Constitution and unlike the the Hong Kong Basic Law, Canada has nary one single constituent document that comprises as its constitution. Instead the principal document that it relies to serve as its constitution is the amended British North America Act of 1867 also called the Constitution Act of 1867 which together with amendments to it and other unwritten documents became the basis for the present Constitution Act, 1982 (Cullen 1990, p.29). In fact, the constitution of Canada as well as Australia are sourced from the Acts of Parliament which is the major component of the UK Constitution (Kernell 2005, p.28). Other than the British North America Act of 1867, the other sources of the Canadian constitution are British laws which had already become entrenched in Canadian ethos as part of their legal system. The Canadian Constitution is most alike the UK Constitution which is mainly an unwritten constitution (Reference re Secession of Quebec) and thus like the latter and very unlike the Hong Kong Basic Law, which it cannot find any similarity. This constitution is also culled from constitutional conventions, royal prerogatives and other unwritten principles like an implied Bill of Rights, respect for the native Indians and other aborigines, democracy, federalism and rule of law. If there is any common denominator between the Basic Law and the Canadian Constitution, it is the Canadian Bill of Rights which had been amended in 1982 to evolve the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Like the Basic Law, it showcases the basic human freedoms such as the freedom of religion and speech (section 2 of Charter); the right to life, liberty and security of one’s person as well as the right to fundamental justice (sec. 7); the right to counsel (sec. 10); equal protection of the law rights (sec. 15);right to ownership and enjoyment of one’s property. However while these aforesaid rights are part of the Basic Law, 13 these are however in Canadian terms, merely quasi-constitutional because they remain mired as mere statutes and thus have limited effectivity (Seidle & Docherty 2003, p.27). Comparison Between the Hong Kong Basic Law and the Australian Constitution The Australian Constitution came into the fore on January 1, 1901. While it is rooted in Britain’s Acts of Parliament, it is also a hybrid between the UK Constitution and the US Constitution, gleaning the best features of both to form a unique constitution it can call its own. This document created an Australian parliament which basis is the British Parliament in London (Patmore 2001, p. 2). It also established federalism which is patterned from that of the USA. As such, in both counts, it has no similarity at all with the Basic Law. To further dampen the mood of ardent believers of the Basic Law, it is shocking to find out that Australia has no generalized Bill of Rights, unlike Canada which has its Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, specific rights are scattered all throughout the Australian Constitution. For example, chapter 13 mentioned the rights of communication and political speech (Saunders 2003, p.166). Like the Basic Law, Australian Constitution includes a right to trial by jury (sec. 80); right to freedom of religion (sec. 116);right to freedom from discrimination(sec. 117) and right to just compensation (Par. 51). Unlike the Basic Law, which is replete and complete with all the human basic rights, this constitution seems to take for granted rights and freedoms of its citizens. While the Basic Law is subject to amendments after 50 years by China’s National People’s Congress, the Australian Constitution can only be amended by the citizens themselves through a referendum (Harris 2002, p.132). Like the Basic Law, the Australian Constitution provides for an executive department, which is in the hands of a Governor- General advised by the Federal Executive Council; the Parliament as its legislature, headed by te Prime Minister and the judiciary, which power is vested in a Federal Supreme Court called the High Court of Australia. 14 Comparison Between the Hong Kong Basic Law and the The China Constitution At this juncture, we have to reiterate and reemphasize that the Hong Kong Basic Law was based on the Sino-British Joint Declaration and Deng Xiaoping’s One Country, Two Systems principle which implied that the Basic Law will be different from the Chinese Constitution because the Chinese socialist and authoritarian system would not be applied at all in any of its territories but instead the capitalist system would go on unimpeded. Article 1 of the 1982 Constitution of the People’s Republic of China screamed lucidly that China is a “socialist state under the people’s democratic dictatorship”. This constitution was originally patterned after the Soviet Union 1936 Constitution albeit instead of federalism it pushed for a unitary multi-national state. Article 5, however, puts some semblance to that of the Basic Laws. It avers that the “ constitution and law are supreme over all organizations and individuals”. There are also provisions for fundamental rights and freedoms of the citizens such as the right to vote and to be voted for and “freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration” causing several eyebrows to arch considering the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. But the Chinese bigwigs quickly countered that article 53 of the 1982 Constitution provides that “the citizens must abide by the law and observe labor discipline and public order (Art. 53). The constitution also guarantees in paper “freedom of religious worship” but before one would jump to the conclusion that there is one common denominator with the Basic Law it continues to declare that “religious bodies and religious affairs are not subject to any foreign domination”. Thus, the Roman Catholic Church and other sects are forced to operate clandestinely for fear of being persecuted. 15 If proponents of the Basic Law must conclude that at least there is a right to vote provision. Still, they’re in for a big disappointment because direct elections by the citizens are only allowed for village councils in designated rural areas (Chen & Hsu 2003, p. 295). All other elections, especially that of the executive i.e. President, state council and provincial governors and legislative levels are indirectly elected by the National People’s Congress. Thus, the electoral franchise is but decorative and in actuality it is the Communist Party of China that controls the whole electoral process. While the Basic Law guarantees freedom of movement and emigration, the Chinese constitution doesn’t stipulate any freedom of movement in residence. Thus, rural residents are assigned and registered as permanent residents of specified towns and villages. If the Basic Law is characterized by separation of powers of the executive, legislative and judicial departments, the Chinese Constitution concentrates the powers on the National People’s Congress which has the power to select the President of China, the Supreme People’s Court and the State Council. The election of executive positions most especially the President of the People’s republic of China hinges on the approval or non-approval by the delegates to the National People’s Congress, who are selected from the people’s congresses of 23 provinces, 5 autonomous regions and 4 municipalities belonging to the central government in Beijing. This is because the Communist Party nominates the President and all that the delegates have to do is to approve or disapprove and the ‘yea’ votes must be more than 50 % of the total votes (Barnett & Clough 1986, p. 20). Well, at least, there is one similarity between the Basic Law and the Chinese Constitution because the Chief Executive in the Basic Law is appointed by the National People’s Congress despite a provision guaranteeing universal suffrage. 16 Comparison Between the Hong Kong Basic Law with the European Union Constitution Were Hong Kong geographically within the boundaries of the European Union countries, it could have without second thoughts joined the European Union and affixed its signature to the European Constitution that was accepted and ratified in Rome on October 29, 2004 by 16 countries. It was however unfortunate that France and Netherlands chose to axe such constitution compelling 7 other countries to put a hold on their decisions sending the constitutional ratification issue to limbo (Richardson 2006, p.51). I say that Hong Kong will certainly be amenable to all the provisions of the EU Constitution because most of these provisions, which in reality are culled from 7 previous treaties starting from the Treaty of Paris in 1951 to the 2007 Lisbon treaty, are contained in Hong Kong’s Basic Law. Therefore, we conclude that the Basic Law is in the same wavelength as provisions of the conceptualized EU Constitution. The preamble of the EU Constitution alone which makes sacrosanct the values of the “inviolable and inalienable rights of the human person, freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law” draws parallel to the values enshrined in the Basic Law. The European Union’s values as articulated in article 1-2, might as well be the values also articulated throughout the Basic Law, the Union’s objectives (article 1-3) and fundamental freedoms (article 1-4); the fundamental rights (article 1-9) are also contained in the Basic Law (except that the former emphasizes solidarity among members). The rest of the articles are irrelevant to Hong Kong mainly because it tackles the relationships and intra-union policies of the 27 member countries which is an extremely difficult task considering that a superstate is being contemplated and this superstate is composed of 27 autonomous states possessing their own constitutions (Blankart & Mueller 2004, p. xv). Hong Kong and the rest of humanity can only marvel at how organizers 17 behind the EU and the constitution were able to deftly move these countries to agree to unite together. Critics say it was because the Union assuaged the members that it will not encroach and will not act in areas where the member can sufficiently achieve solution to their problems on their own but only in cases where the member itself gives away the right to decide and act on its own. In short, the Union clarified that it will only be subsidiary to the constitution and powers of the member states. Conclusion From all the studies we have carried out, we thereby conclude that the Hong Kong Basic Law is most akin to that of the US Constitution and has no point of similarity with that of the Chinese Constitution. It is also somewhat similar to the European Union Constitution, especially in point of view of the spirit and the objectives contemplated. As to documentary form, it is distinct from that of the UK and Canadian Constitutions which do not have written, codified constitutions but are mere compilations of several other documents. It has little similarity with the Australian Constitution though. But the real problem of the basic Law is that it is vulnerable to amendment by the National people’s Congress of China after 50 years. We thus might at that most unfortunate time, behold a possible exodus of Hong Kong citizens reminiscent of the pre-1997 hegira of its citizens to such countries as Canada, USA and UK. 18 REFERENCES Bagehot, W & Taylor, M 2001, ‘The English Constitution’, Oxford University Press. Barnett, D & Clough, R 1986, ‘Modernizing China, Westview Press. Blankart, CB & Mueller, D 2004, ‘ A constitution for the European Union’, MIT Press. Boland, R 2008, ‘The basics of Hong Kong’s Basic Law’, http://gohongkong.about.com/od/historyandcultureofhk/a/hkbasiclaw.htm. Carroll, JM 2007, ‘A concise history of Hong Kong’, Rowman & Littlefield. Chen, W., Chan,J., Fu, HL., 2000, ‘Hong Kong’s constitutional debate, Hong Kong University Press. CIA , 2008, ‘The world factbook’. www.cia.gov. Cohen, J & Hsu, S. 2003, ‘Understanding China’s legal system, NYU Press. Cullen, R 1990, ‘Fewderalism in action, Federation Press. De Smith, S & Brazier, R 1989, 6th ed., Constitutional & administrative law, Routledge. Harris, B 2002, ‘A new constitution for Australia’, Routledge Cavendish. He, B.,Galligan, B., Inoguchi, T 2007, ‘Federalism in Asia’, Edward Elgar Publishing. Ingham, M 2007, ‘Hong Kong: a cultural history’,Oxford University Press. Kernell, S 2005, ‘James Madison’, Stanford University press. Landy, P. 2003, ‘A Blupete essay’, http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Essays/BluePete/Constitution.htm. Lye, K 1996, ‘The portable world factbook, Avon Books. Manuel v Attorney general. 1982. 3AER 786 at 795. Patmore, G., Jungwith, G 2001, ‘The big makeover’, Pluto Press, Australia. Richardson,JJ., 2006, ‘European Union: power and policy-making, Routledge. Reference re Secession of Quebec 1998, 2S.C.R. 217. Saunders, C 2003, ‘It’s your constitution’, fewderation Press. Seidle, L., Docherty, D 2003, ‘Reforming parliamentary democracy’, McGill-Queen’s Press. Tsang, S & Tsang, S YS 2007, A modern history of Hong Kong, I>B> Taris. Wacks, R 2001, ‘Law, morality and the private domain, Hong Kong University Press. Wesley-Smith, P 1994, ‘The sources of Hong Kong law’, Hong Kong University Press. Read More