The government recognizes that the right to discrimination is only a legitimate right.
The first judicial review of the former New Territories resident Ding Quan case was re-examined in the High Court yesterday. The Government stated that the traditional rights listed in Article 40 of the Basic Law clearly include the small house policy. The recognition of the Ordinance states that only the indigenous residents benefit from discrimination. Emphasizing discrimination does not mean breaking the law. It is legal to prove that the provisions are to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the small house policy.
Applicant Cheung Chau resident Guo Zhuojian and social worker Lu Zhiheng continued their remarks, citing the expert witness Professor Zhang Ruiwei of the Chinese University History Department. The British government rented the land before the New Territories without the approval of the Qing government. At that time, the government was unable to enforce the law. The housing policy is the basis for the legitimate traditional rights and interests of the indigenous residents of the New Territories.
The government said that the Basic Law has been discussing the small house policy during the consultation and drafting period. It has never been said that the small house policy is not a legitimate traditional right of the indigenous people in the New Territories. Therefore, it is considered that the applicant’s claim is not true and the reference to Article 40 of the Basic Law is mentioned. The “legitimate" is not the “Law of the Qing Dynasty" in the 19th century, but the Hong Kong court after July 1, 1997. The expert opinion of the applicant is irrelevant. Although the government side recognizes that the rights in Article 40 of the Basic Law are not owned by all, it is a violation of the principle of fairness, but it is not considered to be illegal. As long as the policy has a legitimate purpose and is proportional, it is not discrimination.