Background:
On the case of Ng Ka Ling v. Director of Immigration, the Court of Final Appeal affirmed that Chinese nationals born outside of Hong Kong whose parents are Hong Kong permanent residents are entitled to right of abode, regardless of whether their parents have applied for the one-way permit. This ruling implies that around 1.6 million Chinese (the figure is contested) are eligible for right of abode in Hong Kong, which might lead to serious social problems. The government decided to seek an interpretation from the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC).
Details:
NPCSC interpreted that Mainland children can only enjoy the right of abode if their parents have already been granted the right of abode (successfully applied for one-way permit) at the time of the child’s birth.
Consequences:
Constitutionally the request for a Basic Law interpretation should come from the courts, instead of the Hong Kong government.Some saw the NPCSC interpretation as a loss of Hong Kong’s judicial independence. It set a precedent for future interpretations of the Basic Law by the NPCSC. This led to the worry that the “One Country, Two systems” and “high autonomy” guaranteed by the Basic Law would be eroded. It also marked the beginning of a long debate on the right of abode.
News Report from South China Morning Post, 25 February 1999
News Report from South China Morning Post, 09 May 1999
Pro-Beijing commentary, Wen Wei Po, 28 June 1999 (Chinese) (English-translated)
Pro-Democracy commentary, Apple Daily, 02 July 1999 (Chinese) (English-translated)