OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Saturday, 10 May 1997
The Council met at half-past Nine o'clock
MEMBERS PRESENT:
THE PRESIDENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS RITA FAN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WONG SIU-YEE
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TIEN PEI-CHUN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE DAVID CHU YU-LIN
THE HONOURABLE HO SAI-CHU, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE EDWARD HO SING-TIN, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE RAYMOND HO CHUNG-TAI, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE NG LEUNG-SING
PROF THE HONOURABLE NG CHING-FAI
THE HONOURABLE ERIC LI KA-CHEUNG, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE DAVID LI KWOK-PO, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LEE KAI-MING
THE HONOURABLE MRS ELSIE TU
THE HONOURABLE MRS SELINA CHOW, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS PEGGY LAM, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE HENRY WU
THE HONOURABLE NGAI SHIU-KIT, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE HENRY TANG YING-YEN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE YUEN MO
THE HONOURABLE MA FUNG-KWOK
THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG HON-CHUNG
DR THE HONOURABLE DR TSO WONG MAN-YIN
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG CHUN-YING, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE LEONG CHE-HUNG, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS SOPHIE LEUNG LAU YAU-FUN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MOK YING-FAN
THE HONOURABLE HUI YIN-FAT, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHOI-HI
THE HONOURABLE CHAN YUEN-HAN
THE HONOURABLE CHAN WING-CHAN
THE HONOURABLE CHAN KAM-LAM
THE HONOURABLE CHENG KAI-NAM
THE HONOURABLE FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE
THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WONG WANG-FAT, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE PHILIP WONG YU-HONG
THE HONOURABLE KENNEDY WONG YING-HO
THE HONOURABLE HOWARD YOUNG, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE CHARLES YEUNG CHUN-KAM
THE HONOURABLE YEUNG YIU-CHUNG
THE HONOURABLE IP KWOK-HIM
THE HONOURABLE CHIM PUI-CHUNG
THE HONOURABLE BRUCE LIU SING-LEE
THE HONOURABLE LAU KONG-WAH
THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS MIRIAM LAU KIN-YEE, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE AMBROSE LAU HON-CHUEN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHOY KAN-PUI, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE PAUL CHENG MING-FUN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHENG YIU-TONG
DR THE HONOURABLE TANG SIU-TONG, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TIMOTHY FOK TSUN-TING
THE HONOURABLE KAN FOOK-YEE
THE HONOURABLE NGAN KAM-CHUEN
THE HONOURABLE LO SUK-CHING
DR THE HONOURABLE LAW CHEUNG-KWOK
THE HONOURABLE TAM YIU-CHUNG, J.P.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
THE HONOURABLE ALLEN LEE, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE RONALD ARCULLI, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TSANG YOK-SING
THE HONOURABLE MS MARIA TAM WAI-CHU, J.P.
CLERK IN ATTENDANCE:
MS PAULINE NG
CLERK TO THE PROVISIONAL LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
BILL
Resumption of Second Reading Debate
HOLIDAYS (1997 AND 1998) BILL
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Good morning, Honourable Members. Bill: Resumption of Second Reading debate.
We now resume the Second Reading debate on the Holidays (1997 and 1998 ) Bill. Does any Member wish to speak? Mr MOK Yin-fan.
MR MOK YIN-FAN (in Cantonese): Madam President, I move that the Holidays (1997 and 1998) Bill be amended as set out under my name on the Revised Agenda.
Madam President, the main purpose of my amendment is to designate 1 May as a statutory holiday on top of those already contained in the Holidays (1997 and 1998) Bill.
The Holidays (1997 and 1998) Bill mainly aims to specify the public holidays and statutory holidays in 1997 and 1998 for the compliance by employers and employees. The Alliance for Democracy and People's Livelihood (ADPL) supports the designation of the additional public holidays and statutory holidays contained in the Bill for the purpose of celebrating the reunion of Hong Kong with China and its change of status. The ADPL also agrees that legislation with permanent effect should be enacted to retain such holidays. That said, as the ADPL sees it, the Bill is still inadequate: it fails to recognize the achievements of the broad masses of Hong Kong workers through the designation of statutory holidays and it also fails to reflect the cultural facet of the Hong Kong community by means of an appropriate scheme of public holidays. On basis of this reason, I propose that the Bill should be amended.
Madam President, the economic development and prosperity of Hong Kong today are directly attributable to the contributions of its working class. Such contributions really deserve our respect and recognition, and must not be forgotten. When we wonder what have made Hong Kong's current success possible and why it has been able to overcome each and every difficulty it encounters, credit for them should not be withheld. And, if we are to show respect for their contribution, nothing is more appropriate than designating a special holiday for the unique purpose of highlighting their achievements. This is a day on which they can enjoy the fruits of their labour, and this is also a day which serves to increase public recognition of their contribution.
Madam President, I notice that labour welfare in Hong Kong is undergoing constant improvements, and as a matter of comparison, huge progress has been made over the years. Many people are fighting for the rights and benefits to which the working class are entitled. The emphasis on occupational safety, the setting of a minimum wage level and the enhancement of the status enjoyed by trade unions are all obvious examples of improvement measures.
As a body with concern for democracy and the people's livelihood, the ADPL maintains that besides recognizing the benefits and rights for the labour force mentioned just now, we should also pay attention to the physical and mental well-being of workers as well as their need for a balanced life, so that they can have the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of their labour. Therefore, the ADPL proposes to fight for one more day of paid statutory holiday for workers as a modest reward for their huge contribution. We believe that one additional day of holiday will not cause any substantial losses to employers and the economy of Hong Kong. We need only to pay a small price, and the broad masses of workers, like everyone else in Hong Kong, will be able to share the fruits of Hong Kong's economic development and the joy of reunion.
Madam President, as far as I know, since 1989 when the Socialist International designated May Day (1 May) as the International Labour Day, many countries all over the world have devoted this very day to the purpose of paying tribute to workers' contribution to their national economies. Such countries include the various union republics of the former USSR and many other countries in Eastern Europe, Western Europe and Southeast Asia. On its Internet homepage, the Singaporean Government even points out directly that by designating 1 May as a statutory holiday, Singapore aims to pay its highest respect for the working class. As an advanced place having a high regard for democracy and human rights, how can Hong Kong allow itself to lag behind when so many countries have designated 1 May as a statutory holiday to pay tribute to workers' contribution?
Madam President, at this juncture, I want to emphasize that as from 1 July, Hong Kong will enter a new era; it will be reunited with China while remaining a city with a high degree of self-government and autonomy. The vision of the Hong Kong people, in the past very much confined and localized in scope, will have to be elevated to a higher and broader national perspective. In China, 1 May has been a labour holiday for a very long time. Over the years, the labour sector in Hong Kong have been fighting for the designation of 1 May as a statutory holiday, and they are widely supported by members of the public. However, under the rule of the British Hong Kong Administration, they have hitherto failed to achieve any success. Madam President, with the approach of reunification, I believe that now is the opportune moment for us to designate a statutory holiday to celebrate the International Labour Day so that our broad masses of workers in Hong Kong can share the joy of reunification at this particular historic moment.
In the long run, the ADPL will seek to amend the existing legislation in respect of statutory and public holidays on a permanent basis so that the International Labour Day on 1 May and the Buddhist Festival on the Eighth of the Fourth Lunar Month can be included in the respective Ordinance, thereby achieving my aforesaid purpose of giving positive recognition to the contribution of workers and reflecting the cultural facet of the community of Hong Kong.
Madam President, with these remarks, I beg to move my amendment later.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr NG Ching-fai.
MR NG CHING-FAI (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Holidays (1997 and 1998) Bill has been drafted in accordance with the Decision on the Arrangements for the Public Holidays in the Second Half of 1997 and the Whole of 1998, which was endorsed by the Preparatory Committee (PC) of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) in its Fifth Plenary Session held in October 1996. In fact, as early as 1995, the Preliminary Work Committee (PWC) of the PC already started to examine this issue and came up with its recommendations. Since the Decision was just intended as a stop-gap measure to facilitate the prior holidays arrangements of different trades, industries, schools, organizations and individuals, as well as to adequately prepare printers and their clients for the printing of the coming year's calendar, the principle adopted by the PWC then was that it was best to have as few changes and additional holidays as possible. As for the holidays after 1999, the SAR Government should be left to make the decisions required.
As far as I know, the Labour Advisory Board (LAB) has discussed the Decision of the PC and has already reached a consensus. Following this, people from different sectors of the community and the Hong Kong Government has worked out a scheme of holidays for the second half of 1997 and the whole of 1998 on the basis of the Decision. In view of this, if this Council endorses a holidays bill which deviates from the one submitted by the Chief Executive's Office, the functioning of the Hong Kong community will be adversely affected, and all its people will also be greatly inconvenienced. The Honourable MOK Ying-fan's proposal to designate the International Labour Day on 1 May as an additional statutory holiday will require renewed negotiations with the LAB so as to reach a new consensus. And, the aforesaid adverse effects and inconvenience aside, to consider this proposal when the reunion is just 51 days from now is still far from being realistic. Therefore, although the designation of 1 May as a holiday of the SAR merits consideration, I regret that I cannot support the amendment to be moved by Mr MOK Ying-fan.
Madam President, I also want to take this opportunity to advise the SAR Government that it should, at an appropriate time, study the issue of what new holidays to introduce and what existing holidays to delete. It should then draw up a holidays scheme for 1999 and beyond after wide consultation, and submit it to this Council before the end of 1997, so as to give different sectors in Hong Kong adequate time to make corresponding arrangements.
Madam President, the opinions I have put forward are shared by some of my Honourable colleagues ─ the Honourable Mrs Elsie TU, the Honourable Mrs Peggy LAM, the Honourable Eric LI, the Honourable MA Fung-kwok and the Honourable HUI Ying-fat.
These are my remarks.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Miss CHAN Yuen-han.
MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese): Madam President, 1997 is the most special year for Hong Kong. As a result of the return of the sovereignty over Hong Kong to China, the number of holidays this year is larger than that of past years. In particular, if this Bill is carried, several days of additional holidays, falling on 1 July, 2 July and 1 October, will be added. This symbolizes the end of colonialism, celebrates the return of Hong Kong to China, and realizes the spirit of two systems under one country. So, it can be said that such additional holidays are in line with the political changes in Hong Kong.
It is worth pointing out that the Holidays (1997 and 1998) Bill which we discuss today has followed a rather twisty path during its drafting stage. In the course of the discussions, we in the labour sector put forward our strong views and demands, and the PC did listen to the views of the labour sector when drafting this Bill.
Madam President, we can recall that in March last year, when the PC convened in Beijing and formally endorsed the designation of public holidays in the second half of 1997 and the whole of 1998, labour holidays were not included. In other words, blue-collar employees engaging in physical labour, unlike their white-collar counterparts, will be unable to share the joy of reunion during the paid holidays specified just now. The Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) is very concerned about this, believing that this cannot realize the spirit of "equal holidays for all to share the joy of reunion".
As a result, immediately after the PC meeting concerned, the FTU representatives in the PC wrote a letter to the Committee pointing out that the holidays for employees in Hong Kong are divided into public holidays for office workers and labour holidays for blue-collar workers. For that reason, if public holidays alone are designated, leaving out labour holidays, many arguments will arise, thus leading to chaos and unnecessary disputes. Consequently, the letter points out, the FTU hopes that the number of labour holidays in the second half of 1997 can be increased by three days, thus putting them on a par with public holidays. This will enable all employees in Hong Kong to witness together the making of history.
Madam President, three more days of paid holidays in the second half of 1997 will no doubt increase the costs borne by employers. However, following dialogues between the labour sector and the industrial and commercial sector, and with their joint efforts, an agreement was reached: the addition of three more days of paid labour holidays in 1997. And, this agreement is embodied in the Bill submitted for scrutiny and endorsement today. That is why my FTU colleagues and I strongly support the original motion on the Bill. As for the designation of the International Labour Day on 1 May as a statutory labour holiday, I must point out that this has actually been one of the long-time objectives of the FTU. But, it is a pity that the Hong Kong Government has all along ignored our request and refused to designate this very day as a labour holiday. For that reason, we would also support the motion moved by the Honourable MOK Ying-fan on the designation of 1 May as a paid labour holiday.
Madam President, these are my remarks.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Charles YEUNG.
DR CHARLES YEUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President and Honourable Members of the Provisional Legislative Council, on behalf of the six Members belonging to the Hong Kong Progressive Alliance, I want to express support for the Holidays (1997 and 1998) Bill submitted by the Secretary for Justice to this Council. However, in view of the strong desire of the community to designate the Buddhist Festival as a public holiday, I do urge the SAR Government to give this desire serious consideration in 1999.
These are my remarks.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HO Sai-chu.
MR HO SAI-CHU (in Cantonese): Madam President, I strongly support the opinions expressed by the several Members who spoke just now, not least because the Bill contains the recommendations of the LAB endorsed by the PC. The dates of holidays specified in the Holidays (1997 and 1998) Bill now under discussion have all been discussed, resolved and put forward by all the employees' and employers' representatives on the LAB. Since the decision was made after very detailed discussions by the representatives, I would oppose any alterations to it, be it addition or deletion. I would only support what has already been laid down. For 1997, there should be two more days for the special purpose of celebrating the reunion and one more day for Hong Kong's first ever celebration of the National Day. I would also support the designation of those holidays specified in the Bill for 1998. Apart from these, we cannot allow any additions or deletions. That said, let me just reiterate that with respect to the many other holidays proposed by various organizations, the LAB has in fact recommended to consider them at an appropriate time in the future. The Board has also advised the SAR Government to consider further additions or deletions of holidays in the future. However, in the interim, we must first put the matter through detailed and comprehensive consideration before putting forward any proposals. And, before we are able to put forward further proposals, I consider that it is appropriate for us to endorse the Holidays (1997 and 1998) Bill submitted by Miss Elsie LEUNG, the Secretary for Justice.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Justice, do you wish to reply?
SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE (in Cantonese): The SAR Government has not ignored the contribution of the labour sector to Hong Kong. I just want to say that Schedule 1 mentioned in clause 2(1) deals only with the labour holidays in the second half of 1997; Schedule 2 mentioned in clause 2(2) deals with the public holidays in the second half of 1997; and, clause 3(2), that is, Schedule 3, mentions the public holidays in 1998. As for the labour holidays thereafter, such as those in 1998, or in regard to whether or not some special dates should be added as public holidays or labour holidays, the SAR Government will consult the LAB, the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions and other relevant organizations before making any decisions. The main purpose of this Bill is just to implement the recommendations of the PC on the public holidays and labour holidays in 1997 and 1998. Thank you, Madam President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the Holidays (1997 and 1998) Bill be read the Second time.
Will those in favour please say "aye"?
(Members responded)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please say "no".
(Members responded)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the "ayes" have it. The "ayes" have it.
CLERK (in Cantonese): Holidays (1997 and 1998) Bill.
Committee Stage
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Bills: Committee stage. Council is now in Committee.
HOLIDAYS (1997 AND 1998) BILL
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the following clauses and schedules stand part of the Bill.
CLERK (in Cantonese): Clauses 1 to 3.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will those in favour please say "aye"?
(Members responded)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please say "no".
(Members responded)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I think the " ayes " have it. The "ayes" have it.
CLERK (in Cantonese): New clause 4: Additional statutory holidays for 1998.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr MOK Ying-fan.
MR MOK YING-FAN (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that new clause 4 as set out in the paper circularized to Members be read the Second time.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That new clause 4 as set out under Mr MOK Ying-fan's name in the paper circularized to Members be read the Second time. Does any Member wish to speak? Secretary for Justice, do you wish to speak?
SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I wish to move a motion to amend that schedule.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): You will move that motion later. We are now dealing with the motion moved by Mr MOK Ying-fan.
SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE (in Cantonese): I have already responded to the motion moved by Mr MOK Ying-fan. I have no further comments to make. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Well, Mr MOK Ying-fan, you do not wish to speak again, do you?
(Mr MOK Ying-fan indicated that he did not wish to speak)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please say "aye"?
(Members responded)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please say "no".
(Members responded)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Frederick FUNG.
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): I would like to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Frederick FUNG wishes to claim a division. We shall use the electronic voting unit. I announce that Council will now proceed to a division. The division bell will ring for three minutes. Please wait for three minutes.
Council will now proceed to a division. Just let the division bell ring for the time being because the time now is still two minutes and fifty seconds. In order to save time, I would now brief Members on the procedure of a division. Will Members please locate the voting units labelled with their own names and press the buttons which represent their voting decisions. Please select the appropriate buttons. The green button stands for "Aye", the red one for "No" and the white one for abstention. When I declare the start of a division, the red light on the voting unit will start flashing, and Members have to make their final decisions within 30 seconds. As soon as time is up, the voting unit will be switched off, and Members shall not be able to change their voting decisions. Are there any queries? Dr Philip WONG.
DR PHILIP WONG (in Cantonese): The light is out. It was on for a while just now. But then, it went out.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): It is on now, right? Probably because I had not announced the start of the division, the lights were not yet switched on. All the lights are out now, right? Mrs Selina CHOW.
MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Madam President, would you please tell us on which question we are required to vote now?
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Yes, the question put concerns the amendment moved by Mr MOK Ying-fan, that is, clause 4. Mr MOK Ying-fan has proposed that clause 4 stands part of the Bill, and this followed by his amendment:
"4. Additional Statutory Holiday for 1998
The first day of May 1998 shall be an additional statutory holiday for the purposes of the Employment Ordinance (Cap. 57). An employer must grant a holiday to an employee for the additional holiday in accordance with section 39 of the Employment Ordinance."
Is that all clear now? I now announce the start of voting. Sorry, will Members please wait a little longer so that we can first fix a technical problem with the electronic device.
Mr Edward HO, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Mr CHAN Choi-hi, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Mr Frederick FUNG and Dr LAW Cheung-kwok voted for the motion.
Mr James TIEN, Mr David CHU, Mr HO Sai-chu, Dr Raymond HO, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Eric LI, Dr David LI, Mrs Elsie TU, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mrs Peggy LAM, Mr Henry WU, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr Henry TANG, Mr YUEN Mo, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Dr TSO WONG Man-yin, Mr LEUNG Chun-ying, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mrs Sophie LEUNG, Mr HUI Yin-fat, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHENG Kai-nam, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Dr Charles YEUNG, Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr LAU Kong-wah, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr Timothy FOK, Mr KAN Fook-yee, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen, Mr LO Suk-ching and Mr TAM Yiu-chung voted against the motion.
Mr WONG Siu-yee and Mr Kennedy WONG abstained.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I will now announce the voting results. There are eight votes in favour of the motion, 40 votes against it, and two abstentions. I therefore declare that the motion is negatived.
CLERK (in Cantonese): Schedules 1, 2 and 3.
CHAIRMAN: Secretary for Justice.
SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move the amendments to Schedules 1, 2 and 3 as set out under my name in the paper circularized to Members. The amendments to Schedules 1 and 2 seek to delete "紀念" in items 1 and 2, where the expression appears twice. The first amendment to Schedule 3 concerns a printing error, that is, the missing of the Chinese character "日" at the end of the expression "耶穌受難節翌日中在4月11". The next amendment to this Schedule seeks to correct an error in Schedule 2, where "中秋節翌日" should be used instead of "中秋節當日". Consequently, in Schedule 3, "Monday, 5 October" should be deleted and replaced by " Tuesday, 6 October ". In view of the pattern in which members of the public celebrate the Mid-Autumn Festival, I believe that Members would consider it more appropriate to make the day following the Festival a holiday. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Proposed amendments
Schedules 1, 2 and 3 (see Annex)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak? I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendments moved by the Secretary for Justice to Schedules 1, 2 and 3 be approved. Will those in favour please say "aye"?
(Members responded)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will those against please say "no".
(Members responded)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I think the "ayes" have it. The "ayes" have it.
CLERK (in Cantonese): Schedules 1, 2 and 3 as amended.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will those in favour please say "aye"?
(Members responded)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please say "no".
(Members responded)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I think the "ayes" have it. The "ayes" have it.
Third Reading of Bill
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Council will now resume.
Bills: Third Reading. Secretary for Justice.
SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE (in Cantonese): I move that the Bill be read the Third time and do pass.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Holidays (1997 and 1998) Bill be read the Third time and do pass. I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please say "aye"?
(Members responded)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please say "no".
(Members responded)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the "ayes" have it. The "ayes" have it.
CLERK (in Cantonese): Holidays (1997 and 1998) Bill.
MEMBERS' MOTION
CONSULTATION DOCUMENT ON CIVIL LIBERTIES AND SOCIAL ORDER
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members' Motion. Motion on the Consultation Document on Civil Liberties and Social Order. I have accepted the recommendation of the House Committee as to the time limits on speeches for motion debates. The mover of a motion shall have a total of 15 minutes for his or her speeches including reply, and another five minutes to speak on the amendments. The movers of the amendments and other Members will each have seven minutes for their speeches. Under Rule 37 of the Rules of Procedure, I am obliged to direct any Member speaking in excess of the specified time to discontinue. Mr Bruce LIU.
MR BRUCE LIU (in Cantonese): Madam President, I move that the motion as set out under my name on the Agenda be approved.
Madam President, some newspapers yesterday reported in prominent headlines that the Provisional Legislative Council was not attending to its proper business, and that since it engaged itself in too many motion debates, its work and mission on the enactment of absolutely indispensable laws had been hindered. Today, this Council will hold a motion debate on the Consultation Document on Civil Liberties and Social Order released by the Chief Executive's Office of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR). I must point out that this debate is in fact a significant and integral part of the work on enacting the absolutely indispensable laws referred to. What we are doing right now is simply to reflect the opinions of the public before the relevant laws are drafted, so that amendments can be brought in line with public interests. Conducting debates on consultation documents is actually a course of action which a legislature should take, and such debates also constitute a parliamentary culture which should be treasured. This legislature has a definite responsibility to conduct this debate, not least because it indicates precisely that Members are willing to discharge their duties faithfully by making adequate preparation for the drawing up of the Public Order Ordinance and the Societies Ordinance. That being the case, if we are still criticized for " failing to attend to proper business ", I cannot help wondering whether the critics actually want us to become an "obedient child". So, let me call upon Members to speak enthusiastically in the debate today. Let us all speak to usher in our own parliamentary culture, in particular, the debating facet of it.
Madam President, I must extend my apology to those three Members who will move amendments to my motion. They have proposed to move their amendments purely because they want to discharge their duties faithfully. Unfortunately, in so doing, they have been dragged into my troubles because they are also being criticized as one of those who "fail to attend to their proper business". For that reason, I really owe them a deep apology. So, although I may not buy some of the viewpoints and positions contained in their amendments, I still want to pay tribute to their serious and responsible attitude.
Madam President, since the release of the Consultation Document on Civil Liberties and Social Order, the Chief Executive's Office has received some 4 000 representations, and many organizations and members of the public have commented enthusiastically on the Consultation Document. It can be noticed that public opinions for or against the proposed amendments are sharply divided.
What account for the concern and anxiety which the public feel about the proposed amendments to the Public Order Ordinance and the Societies Ordinance? I believe that such a concern has imparted two unambiguous messages: first, the public have become increasingly mature in terms of civic awareness, which explains why they have responded so enthusiastically to the Chief Executive's consultation exercise; second, a myriad of divergent opinions do indeed exist in the community, which means that the SAR Government must exercise extreme caution when making any decisions.
Madam President, if the SAR Government is to command the trust of the people, the Chief Executive's Office must conform to a "three-in-one" principle when drafting the amendment bills for the Public Order Ordinance and the Societies Ordinance. What is this "three-in-one" principle all about? This actually stands for three separate principles which must be adhered to in the course of amending the Ordinances: those of legality, common sense and reasonableness.
Principle 1: Legality
Any amendments to the Public Order Ordinance and the Societies Ordinance must comply with the provisions of the Basic Law and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) as applied to Hong Kong.
Madam President, the civil rights of Hong Kong citizens are guaranteed under the provisions of the Basic Law. For example, Articles 27 and 39 of the Basic Law stipulate that Hong Kong residents shall continue to have freedom of association, of assembly, of procession and of demonstration; and the right and freedom to form and join trade unions and to strike. However, the Consultation Document proposes to introduce the relevant provisions under Article 23 of the Basic law into the Societies Ordinance. It is proposed that provisions should be made in the Ordinance to prohibit political organizations or bodies of Hong Kong from establishing ties with foreign political organizations or bodies. It is also proposed that donations made by aliens or foreign organizations to political organizations of Hong Kong should be restricted. However, these proposals have gone beyond the original legislative intent underlying Article 23 of the Basic Law. The original intent of Article 23, with respect to political organizations, is just to prohibit foreign political parties from intervening in and controlling the operations of political parties of Hong Kong. I believe that the most appropriate way to achieve this purpose is to enact a specific ordinance on political parties in the future, so as to prohibit foreign political parties from intervening in and influencing the Hong Kong politics. To tackle this issue by amending the Societies Ordinance is altogether inappropriate.
What is more, the Consultation Document lays all its emphasis on balancing civil liberties and rights against the needs of society, and on the reasons for restricting the people's exercise of their rights. I must point out that according to the provisions under Article 21 and Article 22 of the ICCPR, any restrictions placed on the people's exercise of their rights must satisfy several conditions. First, they must be deemed "necessary in a democratic society", and must be sensibly related to and commensurate with the goals pursued. Moreover, the restrictions concerned should at most cause only minimum infringement on basic human rights.
The Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood (ADPL) maintains that although we have to balance human rights against the interests of the community, the rights of the individual should remain our prime concern in striking this balance. The Government is not allowed to change the balance unless it can provide adequate and convincing justifications. However, the justifications given in the Consultation Paper are just some sporadic cases, such as the forcible entry of demonstrators into the Japanese consulate and the inconvenience suffered by office-goers as demonstrators gather outside commercial premises. The point is that the police have already confirmed that they can deal with such cases adequately well under the existing laws. That being the case, when the Government quotes these justifications and puts forward proposals to further restrict the Hong Kong people's exercise of their rights, it is actually departing from the principle of respecting and upholding human rights which underlines the ICCPR. Such an action is also inappropriate as far as the interpretation of our laws is concerned.
In addition, according to the ICCPR, the Government is obliged to prescribe the restrictions to be placed on the exercise of basic human rights in clear and definite terms. However, instead of giving such a clear definition, the Consultation Document simply proposes a direct incorporation into the Societies Ordinance of those ICCPR provisions which lay down only the generalities underlying the justifications for restrictions. If, after enactment, members of the public still cannot foresee whether some particular acts of theirs will constitute an offence, the law enacted should not be regarded as a good law. Similarly, the new restrictions should not be regarded as reasonable, and should best be dropped.
Principle 2 and Principle 3 ─ Common Sense and Reasonableness
By common sense and reasonableness, I mean that any new restrictions must not run counter to our rationality and the good sense governing our everyday life dealings. This is in fact the essence of "common sense" in its normal, usual sense.
Madam President, as a Cantonese colloquialism goes: "Let the carpenter who makes a door be reminded that the very door he makes is supposed to be used both by himself and others". The Chief Executive himself has made a donation of￡50,000 to the Conservative Party of Britain, and there has been no evidence that this donation has in any way interfered with British domestic politics. But then, the Consultation Document proposes to impose restrictions on foreigners who want to make donations to local political bodies on a personal basis. This is unreasonable, not least because the Chinese Government has itself accepted donations from foreign individuals and non-political bodies, and there have been no signs that China's internal affairs have been influenced by any foreigners. What is more, it is hardly acceptable, from whatever perspective, that restrictions are to be placed only on donations made by Taiwan political parties to their Hong Kong counterparts, while donations made by mainland political organizations to political parties of Hong Kong are exempted.
The second aspect of the unreasonableness is the lack of a clear and reasonable definition for the concept of "national security". According to a code on national security signed in Johannesburg in 1995, the concept of "national security" should be underlined by two major principles: first, national interests must be interpreted as the interests of a nation as a whole, instead of the interests of any individual governments or regimes; second, national security should refer to the peace and security enjoyed by a nation in the international context, which in effect means territorial integrity and the independent exercise of political powers by a nation. In view of this, the bill must contain a clear and concrete definition for the concept of "national security".
The third aspect of unreasonableness is that with respect to processions and demonstrations, a "system of application" will continue to replace a "system of notification" under the proposals. People intending to hold processions and petitions will be required to apply to the police at least seven days beforehand, and they must obtain a "Notice of No Objection" issued by the police before they can hold their activities. Besides, the Consultation Document does not give the police adequate discretionary powers to handle unexpected processions and demonstrations. Such a "system of application", lacking in flexibility, is obviously not in line with the local political culture which sees demonstrations and petitions as regular features of the community.
Madam President, I believe that if the Chief Executive's Office really wants to introduce drastic amendments to these Ordinances within the limited time remaining in the transition period, omissions during the process of deliberation are almost inevitable, and loopholes in our laws will easily result. As a matter of fact, even the Legislative Council over there in Hong Kong had to spend a very long time on examining the issues involved before it finally amended these two Ordinances. Thus, given its comparative shortage of law drafting personnel, if the Chief Executive's Office still wants to introduce drastic amendments to the Ordinances within the limited time available, omissions to the detriment of the meticulousness of our laws will easily result. In view of this, the Chief Executive's Office should, as far as possible, continue to adopt the time-proven Public Order Ordinance and Societies Ordinance currently in force. It is not advisable to introduce drastic amendments to them. Instead, it should just make some minimal adjustments to the Ordinances.
Madam President, these are my remarks.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That with the publication of the "Consultation Document on Civil Liberties and Social Order" by the Chief Executive's Office to invite public comments, this Council urges the Chief Executive's Office to seriously consider and accord due respect to the views of the public and that any amendments to the Societies Ordinance and the Public Order Ordinance shall be made according to the following principles:
1. the provisions of the Basic Law should be complied with;
2. the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights should be observed; and
3. restrictions on the freedom of association, of assembly and procession and so on in comparison with those imposed by existing legislation under the British colonial regime in Hong Kong, should not be tightened or be unreasonable, and the aim of the legislative amendments should be to allow latitude.
Members have been informed by circular on 5 May that Mrs Elsie TU and Mr CHAN Choi-hi have separately given notices to move amendments to this motion. Mrs Selina CHOW has also given notice to move an amendment to the amendment by Mrs Elsie TU, and Members have been informed by circular on 6 May of Mrs Selina CHOW's amendment. As there are two amendments to the motion, and a further amendment to one of the amendments, I propose to have the motion and all the amendments debated together in a joint debate.
Council shall now debate the motion and the amendments together in a joint debate. I will call upon Mrs Elsie TU to speak first, to be followed by Mr CHAN Choi-hi and then Mrs Selina CHOW; but no amendments are to be moved at this stage. Members may then express their views on the original motion as well as the proposed amendments to the motion as set out in the Revised Agenda. Mrs Elsie TU.
MRS ELSIE TU: Thank you, Madam President.
Madam President, first, I would like to explain that I do not agree with this motion being held today, but since it has been moved, I feel I must move this amendment.
I want to remind Members that the provisions of the Basic Law must be complied with, as mentioned in point (1) of Mr Bruce LIU's motion. All Members of this Council are committed to upholding the Basic Law, and that includes Mr LIU and his party.
Governor PATTEN and his local political allies have repeatedly claimed to be complying with the Basic Law, yet they have repeatedly breached Article 158 of the Basic Law, which says "The power of interpretation of this Law shall be vested in the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress". No licence is given to any others to interpret the Basic Law. Indeed no country permits its constitution to be interpreted by a foreign power or by any individual person or party.
Yet, I find Mr LIU's second paragraph to be in breach of Article 39 of the Basic Law because in calling for adherence to the ICCPR, he omits the words "as applied to Hong Kong". Mr LIU must know that this is the heart of the problem that has necessitated the changes proposed in the Consultation Document. Article 39 specifically states that changes in the application of the ICCPR shall be implemented through the laws of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. If the transition goes smoothly ─ and I urge all political parties to make this possible ─ and if foreign interference ceases, there is no reason why the future Legislative Council should not relax laws if they are found to be unduly harsh.
Turning to point (3) of Mr LIU's motion, I think this only confuses the issue and is not based on any firm principles. What is meant by "unreasonable" and how does one measure unreasonableness? Is it reasonable, for example, to relax the law to the extent that demonstrators may take to the streets whenever or wherever they want, regardless of any nuisance they may cause to the public?
And how much more latitude does he propose to give to the small minority, who without regard to the wider interests of the public who may be inconvenienced? This part of the motion is wide open to interpretation.
In fact none of the proposals in the Consultation Document can be called draconian. They exist in other jurisdictions, and conform with the requirements of the ICCPR.
Besides the requirement to comply with the Basic Law, I consider that the changes proposed in this document are more essential now than they were under the colonial government, because the colonial government could adopt even the most draconian laws in the past, such as the secret Deportation and Detention Rules, which were abolished secretly less than two years ago and they were not criticized by local politicians or foreign governments. The situation has now changed. The United States and other western countries have suddenly begun to apply pressures on Hong Kong, even to the childish extent of proposing to hinder Members of this Council visiting the United States ─ a most undemocratic attitude I must say.
Hong Kong's situation is sensitive at any time, but now especially Hong Kong people must be on the alert for the possibility of the region being infiltrated by hostile elements. Japan, for example, is now estimated to have 100 000 extreme right-wingers who openly worship the spirits of their war criminals who brought horrendous suffering to China, including Hong Kong, for a generation. Moreover, the United States has given encouragement to hostile elements in Taiwan, causing concern and suspicion that their agents could be operating here.
In the light of these facts, can Hong Kong at this time afford to relax laws that worked well enough before changes contrary to the Basic Law were introduced in 1992 and 1995?
If any are concerned about police abusing their powers, I feel sure that this Council would make its objections known, because it is not our aim to deny the right to peaceful demonstration, assembly, or procession. It is, however, our responsibility to maintain public order and prevent interference by outside political parties, or funding for elections by any but Hong Kong permanent citizens. After all, our responsibilities are to local residents, not to foreign countries or foreign political ideologies.
Madam President, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Choi-hi.
MR CHAN CHOI-HI (in Cantonese): Madam President, I shall move an amendment to Mr Bruce LIU's motion by adding the following sentence at the end of it:
"At the same time, with securing the confidence of the people of Hong Kong, eliminating their anxiety and ensuring a smooth transition as our principal tasks during the transition, this Council urges the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to introduce legislation on an interim basis to fill up the legal vacuum in relation to the Societies Ordinance and the Public Order Ordinance, and to introduce legislation thereafter on a permanent basis when the first Legislative Council is in session and after experience in enforcement has been gained and extensive consultation has been conducted following the handover. "
Since the Chief Executive's Office released the Consultation Paper on Civil Liberties and Social Order last month, a lot of Hong Kong people have expressed the worry that their freedom may be curtailed in the future. No doubt, there is still a silent majority in Hong Kong. But the sense of insecurity and anxieties already expressed by those who do speak up can actually reflect the prevalent sentiments of the people. On the eve of the setting up of the Special Administrative Region (SAR), the principal tasks of the SAR Government should be to allay the anxieties of the Hong Kong people, ensure a smooth transition, gain the confidence of Hong Kong people and avoid unnecessary disputes. So, I cannot help asking this question: At this very sensitive moment, is it really necessary to rush in some ordinances which provoke suspicion and fear among the people of Hong Kong? Why is it impossible to wait until the SAR is set up? Why is it impossible for us to take our time conducting an extensive consultation exercise, or wait until the people's minds are put more at ease before any amendments are made? This will be very useful in maintaining the Hong Kong people's confidence and in ensuring a smooth transition.
"Never trouble trouble till trouble troubles you". The Societies Ordinance and the Public Order Ordinance, as they stand, have been in force for several years already, but, no major problems of any kind have occurred. But then, some people still want to look upon processions, demonstrations, assemblies and acts of forming associations as a kind of disturbance that would upset the social order of Hong Kong. Such a viewpoint is actually very wrong. Civil liberties and social order are not mutually exclusive. They do not contradict each other, nor are they the two rivals in a zero-sum game which sees the complete triumph of one and the utter defeat of the other. Quite the contrary. If civil liberties are not adequately protected, the community will be full of anxieties and a sense of insecurity. Excessive amendments to the Public Order Ordinance and the Societies Ordinance are, frankly speaking, the symptom of a "psychological problem" stemming from a great distrust of the Hong Kong people. Indeed, some people do not believe that the people of Hong Kong will exercise their civil liberties wisely, and they fear that the Hong Kong people may "behave foolishly". Tight control is therefore preferred to latitude as a result of this "psychological problem", which is characterized by a kind of just-in-case mentality. This psychological problem really needs a right remedy, and the remedy is to have trust in the people of Hong Kong! If amendments to the Public Order Ordinance and the Societies Ordinance can be made on the basis of a sense of trust in the Hong Kong people, then the latter's anxieties will certainly disappear.
Since the National People's Congress (NPC) has declared the Public Order Ordinance and the Societies Ordinance null and void as from 1 July 1997, these two Ordinances indeed need to be re-enacted. However, it should be noted that these two Ordinances are highly significant to Hong Kong because they affect its people's freedom of expression and association, as well as its party politics. For that reason, instead of a three-week consultation exercise, there should be sufficient time for discussions and extensive consultation, especially when Article 23 of the Basic Law, which prohibits political organizations of the SAR from establishing ties with foreign political organizations, comes into question. In view of this, why do we not leave both the Public Order Ordinance and the local law relating to Article 23 of the Basic Law to the first Legislative Council, a body to be returned by elections in 1998? I believe that this is the most appropriate and responsible approach which can cater to the interests of the Hong Kong people. With the issues left to the first Legislative Council to handle, the people's anxieties would have relatively subsided, and consultation and discussions can also be conducted in a more adequate manner. What is more, the drafting work of the local law to implement Article 23 will be near completion by then, and this would make it unnecessary to incorporate the interpretation of Article 23 into the existing Public Order Ordinance and Societies Ordinance.
No doubt, if the Public Order Ordinance and the Societies Ordinance are left to the first Legislative Council for scrutiny and approval, there will be a period of legal vacuum in the interim. However, I believe that this legal vacuum will only be very short, and can in fact be filled by various means. One of the ways, the simplest way, is for this Council to enact some provisional ordinances on the basis of existing ordinances so as to provide a stop-gap solution to the problem of legal vacuum. We can all imagine that if we try to rush in some "absolutely indispensable" laws when hard-pressed by time, we may well create more problems than we seek to solve. That being the case, why not let the Provisional Legislative Council live up to what its name suggests and enacts some "provisional ordinances", which, incidentally, are "absolutely indispensable". I hope that the issues in question can be handled by the first Legislative Council after the establishment of the first SAR Government.
Madam President, with these remarks, I shall move that Mr Bruce LIU's motion be amended.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mrs Selina CHOW.
MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Consultation Document on Civil Liberties and Social Order recently released by the Chief Executive's Office has led to reverberations in the community, showing the serious concern which the people of Hong Kong feel about the related issues. And, precisely because the community of Hong Kong has conducted very heated discussions on the proposed amendments contained in the Consultation Document, the conduct of this motion debate in this Council today has become all the more timely. Furthermore, this debate can also provide a chance for members of the public to get to know Members' attitudes toward this controversial issue. For such reasons, I support and welcome the conduct of this motion debate.
In this debate, I must reiterate the position of the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party does not think that the existing Societies Ordinance and Public Order Ordinance are in breach of the Basic Law. In particular, the existing provisions of the Public Order Ordinance, as far as we can see, do not actually contravene any particular provisions of the Basic Law. As for the Societies Ordinance, even if it is necessary to incorporate the spirit of Article 23 of the Basic Law, there is still no need for us to rescind the entire Ordinance as it now stands. Besides, the enforcement of these two Ordinances has proven to be smooth after amendments were made to them by the Hong Kong Government; and, neither opposition in any large numbers nor incidents of any harm to society have since emerged. Therefore, the Liberal Party maintains that there are no practical needs to make any amendments at this stage.
That said, I must point out that following its acceptance of the Preparatory Committee recommendation in February this year, the Standing Committee of the NPC has declared that since the amended parts in the Societies (Amendment) Ordinance 1992 and the Public Order (Amendment) Ordinance 1995 are in breach of the Basic Law, these two Ordinances will not be adopted as laws of the SAR. That being the case, in order to avoid a legal vacuum after the establishment of the SAR, the Liberal Party believes that replacement legislation should be enacted. This is extremely important to the general public, the affected societies and even the law enforcement agencies themselves. If no replacement legislation is enacted, uncertainties in the community will certainly result.
Madam President, in view of public concern about the proposed amendments in the Consultation Document, legislators must exercise extreme caution. In particular, at this very sensitive moment in the final stage of the transition period, any matters which may bear on the confidence of the Hong Kong people must be handled with care. Most importantly, we must ensure that the freedom currently enjoyed by the people of Hong Kong will not be curtailed as a result of the related amendments. And, in this connection, the orientations of the Chief Executive on this issue at the end of the day will inevitably have a bearing on how the Hong Kong people look at him. Some people have, in varying degrees, looked at the proposed amendments on the basis of a "conspiracy theory". However, this may not be the case, because as I observe from the views expressed by Mr TUNG Chee-hwa on this issue, he seems to be genuinely convinced that a right balance must be struck between social order and the liberties covered by the two Ordinances, and that the proposals contained in the Consultation Document are exactly the means to achieve his goal.
In spite of Mr TUNG's Chee-hwa genuine conviction, there is no denying that many people in our community do have reservations about the proposed amendments and they do feel worried as a result. That is why I urge that the Chief Executive should first listen to different opinions and try to appreciate the fear and anxieties of the people. Following this, he should make appropriate changes to the proposals in the Consultation Document.
It may well be asked, "What are Hong Kong people's worries?" Actually, they worry that the proposed amendments may tighten the restrictions on processions, demonstrations and assemblies; they worry that the authorities may abuse their powers in the future and deprive them of their right to processions, demonstrations and assemblies; they worry that the authorities may introduce the mainland's concept on "national security" to Hong Kong; they worry that the bodies to which they belong may be classified as political organizations and hence placed under unnecessary restrictions; they worry that non-political foreign individuals or organizations may be barred from donating to their bodies' routine functions and activities as before.
Madam President, in the following part of my speech, I will outline how the Liberal Party looks at the motion and amendments today. For the original motion moved by the Honourable Bruce LIU, I think that the theme of the debate today should have nothing to do with the colonial rule mentioned in the third point of the motion. Instead of simply basing on the idea of "colonial rule", our consideration and focus should be the striking of a right balance, for public interests, between civil liberties and social order ─ a balance which can command public endorsement and support, not least because this concept has already become irrelevant to the contents of the Ordinances now in question. Therefore, we will not support the original motion of Mr Bruce LIU.
The Honourable Mrs Miriam LAU will explain on behalf of the Liberal Party why we cannot support the amendment to be moved by the Honourable CHAN Choi-hi.
The Liberal Party will support the amendment to be moved by Mrs Elsie TU because her amendment is absolutely appropriate both in terms of spirit and technical considerations. As a result, my amendment to her amendment has taken onboard the three principles which she put forward in connection with the amendment of the two Ordinances. However, in order to make the motion today truly reflect the prevalent feelings and anxieties in the community, I want to incorporate a fourth principle, which is "the anxiety of the people of Hong Kong about their existing freedom being undermined by the amendments should be allayed as far as possible." It is my conviction that this principle can truly reflect the feelings of the Hong Kong people and will thus gain their support. If this Council can support my amendment, and if the executive can be persuaded to accept this fourth principle, this Council will kick off a good start.
Madam President, these are my remarks.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Three Members have put up their hands. I will let them speak one by one in order. Other Members who wish to speak can indicate their wish by putting up their hands. Mr CHOY Kan-pui.
MR CHOY KAN-PUI (in Cantonese): Madam President, since the Chief Executive's Office released the consultation document on the Societies Ordinance and the Public Order Ordinance, there have been a lot of discussions in the community. It is indeed a good sign which indicates not only the increased transparency and regard for public opinions on the part of the Chief Executive's Office when drawing up bills, but also the active public concern about social issues.
Of all the opinions expressed so far, I fail absolutely to buy one point, and that is, that the proposed amendments to the two Ordinances will deprive the Hong Kong people of their human rights, taking away their freedom of association and of procession. No social activities can possibly be conducted in public without the imposition of some restrictions to maintain good order. This is similar to the case of traffic regulations the intent of which is not so much to ban vehicular and pedestrian traffic. We should closely examine whether or not the specific details of the proposed restrictions are reasonable and warranted by realistic circumstances, rather than chanting abstract slogans of objection for the sake of publicity. In particular, we must also refrain from misleading the general public.
Some critics argue that it is wrong for the Consultation Document to lay emphasis on striking a balance between civil liberties and social order. They maintain that human rights and freedom are the fundamentals which should constitute our primary concern, and that restrictions to be imposed to suit the circumstances of society should only be our secondary concern. In their view, we must always let the primary supersede the secondary, instead of trying to balance the two. However, I believe that we should not always look at "human rights" and "freedom" in their absolute sense, not least because the international covenants concerned do in fact allow their signatories to impose some restrictions to suit their respective actual social circumstances. For that reason, I support the fundamental principle underlying the Consultation Document prepared by the Chief Executive's Office on amending the two Ordinances. For the same reason, I also support the amendment to be moved by the Honourable Mrs Elsie TU.
Regarding the specific contents of the amendments proposed for the two Ordinances, the Hong Kong Progressive Alliance (HKPA) basically supports them. The proposed amendments are in line with the Basic Law provision that the human rights covenants as applied to Hong Kong shall continue to remain in force. The HKPA opines that the amendments proposed by the Chief Executive's Office will not lead to any tightening up of the civil liberties and human rights currently enjoyed by the people of Hong Kong.
Madam President, the proposal to restore the "registration system" and incorporate the concept of "national security" in the Societies Ordinance is absolutely necessary. The reason is that Hong Kong will be returned to China very soon, and in view of our close and frequent contacts with the Mainland as a result of geographical proximity, we must pay serious attention to the possibility that foreign political forces may attempt to infiltrate Hong Kong and China, and interfere with our politics. So, we have no alternative but to take the necessary precautions beforehand, and this is conducive to the overall interest of the Hong Kong people.
Regarding the definition of "political organizations", I do not agree that it should be confined to denote political parties. If it is really so confined, a separate political parties law will have to be drawn up to set out the restrictions required. For some societies, although they do not take part in the elections of the three-tiers of government, their objectives do carry a heavy political overtone. For example, because of their objectives, they may organize activities which advocate the independence of Hong Kong, Tibet and Taiwan, or they may seek to change the political systems of the Mainland. Should these societies then not be regarded as political organizations? The HKPA wishes to see a clearer definition of what a political organization is. We do not wish to victimize the innocent, nor do we wish to stifle the normal contacts between our cultural, social, religious and charitable organizations and their foreign counterparts. But, we do think that we must work out some ways to prevent some politically motivated organizations from stealing a march.
With these remarks, Madam President, I support the amendment to be moved by Mrs Elsie TU. Thank you.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Many Members have just raised their hands to indicate their wish to take part in the debate. I will now read out their names, and if there are any omissions, please raise your hands once again to let us know. I will ask the following Members to speak in order: Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Mr CHENG Kai-nam, Mrs Peggy LAM, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Dr TSO WONG Man-yin, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr WONG Siu-yee and Dr Charles YEUNG. I now ask Mr CHAN Wing-chan to speak.
MR CHAN WING-CHAN (in Cantonese): Madam President, in February this year, the Standing Committee of the NPC declared that the Societies Ordinance and the Public Order Ordinance as drastically amended by the British Hong Kong Administration would not be adopted as laws of the SAR. In order to fill the resultant legal vacuum and to ensure the normal functioning of the SAR Government on 1 July, the Chief Executive's Office has found it necessary to amend these two Ordinances and submit them to the Provisional Legislative Council for scrutiny and approval. It is hoped that when the SAR Government is set up on 1 July, there will be laws to adhere to. At the conclusion of the three-week consultation period, the Chief Executive's Office received a total of some 4 000 representations from a wide spectrum of organizations and individuals. I believe that these opinions will be helpful to the Chief Executive's Office in drafting and amending the two Ordinances just mentioned.
Hong Kong is a free and open community governed by the rule of law. Article 27 of the Basic Law also stipulates that the residents of Hong Kong shall enjoy freedom of speech, of association, of assembly and of demonstration. We understand that a stable political environment with good public order is actually a "must" for social development. So, in order to maintain the prosperity of the community, a balance should be struck between the exercise of civil liberties and protection of human rights on the one hand, and the upholding of social order and public interest on the other. Thus the Government is obliged to put in place a good system backed up by the laws required in order to effectively uphold the rule of law.
In view of the principle just mentioned, it is indeed conducive to the overall interests of the community for us to amend these two Ordinances, and to introduce the concept of "national security" for the purpose of preventing foreign political forces from interfering with and influencing the politics of Hong Kong. I maintain that it is appropriate to replace the notification system under the existing Societies Ordinance with one of application. The latter system is preferable in the sense that the government departments concerned can rely on some mechanisms and rules to handle the lawful applications made by societies.
Besides, I am also convinced that the amendment bill on the Public Order Ordinance must stipulate very clearly that the police should not reject an application for procession unless the procession in question is deemed to be against the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
The Consultation Paper advances a proposal under which a procession of fewer than 30 participants is to be exempted from notifying the police in advance. On the other hand, however, for a procession with more than 30 participants, the police have to be notified seven days in advance under normal circumstances, or at least 48 hours beforehand under special circumstances. This proposed requirement lacks flexibility.
Madam President, one can never foretell when some unexpected labour disputes will arise. Not too long ago, I dealt with a labour dispute involving the closing down of a restaurant group which resulted in the laying-off and dismissal of its employees in large numbers. This particular case was rather twisty in its development, and large-scale actions by the employees to claim compensation was on the verge of eruption. In the end, what started off as a dismissal of some 200 employees in one single restaurant was joined in by nearly 1 000 other who had also been dismissed by this same restaurant group some time before. And, all of them approached the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions for assistance.
Inspired by this incident, I propose that when the authorities amend the Public Order Ordinance, they should give the police discretionary powers which can enable it to waive the requirement of a 48-hour notice. That way, the police will be enabled to make sensible judgements on "civil liberties", "social stability", "rights of the individual" and "social obligations in the context of public interests". The best possible balance can thus be struck.
Regarding the definition of "foreign political connections", I think that it should be phrased as political ties with "places outside China" so as to keep in line with the spirit of Article 23 of the Basic Law. On the other hand, owing to historical and political realities, the region of Taiwan should not be exempted from restrictions in this respect. However, in order to show that Taiwan is an inseparable part of China under the principle of "One-China", separate restrictions should be drawn up for the region of Taiwan so as not to confuse it with "foreign countries".
Now, I come to my last point. The Consultation Document proposes to define "political organizations" as those societies which "directly participate in political activities relating to government institutions and comment on public affairs as their main objective". Consequently, political parties taking part in elections to the three-tiers of government are all political organizations under this definition. Such proposed definitions are unrealistic. I maintain that the definition of "political organizations" should cover only those societies which seek to change our political system, or those which directly participate in political activities relating to government institutions and comment on public affairs as their main objective. Such a definition is necessary, lest that societies which have themselves admitted to be political organizations are excluded from the Ordinance, or that district bodies providing kai-fong services are classified as political organizations. There should be a clear definition to avoid a confusion of identity.
Madam President, these are my remarks.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHENG Kai-nam.
MR CHENG KAI-NAM (in Cantonese): Thank you, Madam President. In order to avoid a legal vacuum upon the establishment of the future SAR Government, there is indeed an inevitable need to re-enact some of the existing provisions of the Public Order Ordinance and the Societies Ordinance. A moment ago, the Honourable Bruce LIU said that the community's views for and against the proposals of the Consultation Document are sharply divided. I do not think that this is the case because all opinions should be expressed on the premise of mutual trust, and they should not be categorized into simple "yes" or "no". When the Honourable CHAN Choi-hi spoke on the consultation exercise just now, he expressed the hope that the administration of the Chief Executive would seek to amend the two Ordinances on the basis of trust in the people. By the same token, should we not also remind ourselves that we should not make comments on the Consultation Document on the basis of distrust? If Mr Bruce LIU thinks that public opinions can be assessed simply by looking at the slogans written on the banners put up by supporting and opposing organizations in the streets, then this issue may really boil down to a simple "black" or "white". But, if this is really the case, I must ask Mr LIU, "Is your party one of the "black" or one of the "white"? I believe our discussions must be based on pragmatism and reasons.
As for the introduction of the concept of "national security", it must be said that this concept is undoubtedly still rather new to the Hong Kong people. That said, we, members of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB), do want to believe that the original intent of the Chief Executive's Office in introducing this concept is not so much to lay down some rules to stifle civil liberties in Hong Kong or to intimidate its residents. Rather, we would want to believe that its intent is to introduce a measure which can uphold sovereignty. We hope that the intent concerned is preventive, not pre-emptive.
We also believe that the very concept of "national security", which has given rise to many recent arguments, warrants a clearer and more precise definition based, for example, on national unification and territorial integrity in order to let the people know very clearly where the line lies. As for the Societies Ordinance, what is most controversial is the provision on prohibiting political organizations from accepting donations from and establishing ties with foreign political organizations. We maintain that there should be restrictions in principle, not least because in a thoroughly free and open community like Hong Kong, it is only reasonable for the Government to lay down some relevant requirements. As in the case of other countries, this is no more than a step restoring normalcy, and thus should not be regarded as anything new.
That said, the DAB still sees a need to define "political organizations" more clearly, lest we may victimize the innocent and cause unnecessary misunderstandings when enforcing the laws in the future. In addition, we maintain that donations made on a personal basis should not be placed under any restrictions. And, for the sake of clarity, we think that "places outside Hong Kong" as a definition should be inserted and applied to political organizations in foreign countries and in Taiwan.
Regarding the treatment of processions and demonstrations under the proposed amendments to the Public Order Ordinance, we can see that the possibility of a ban will arise only when the procession concerned is seen to adversely affect national security, public safety, public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others. Thus, there is actually not much difference between the proposed amendments and the existing provisions. I said at the beginning of my speech that there should be a premise of mutual trust for all of us. So, as in the case of a commercial contract, if we assume that the other party is not going to fulfil the contract, our talk about the law and all the provisions of the contract will become totally meaningless. I can recall that when Article 27, which is on processions and assemblies, was discussed during the drafting stage of the Basic Law years back, the Basic Law Drafting Committee and the scrutiny committee decided to insert the word "demonstration" as a special attempt to define "processions" more clearly. However, we still believe that we can further narrow the difference between the future and existing systems within reasonable limits.
The DAB also advocates that in the proposed amendments, the Commissioner of Police's discretionary power should be re-instated, so that he can be empowered to permit the conduct of a procession or an assembly with a prior notice of less than 48 hours.
Madam President, no one will possibly object, I am convinced, if I say that the proposals of the Consultation Document are purely meant to balance civil liberties against social order. The only question is where such a balance should lie. We maintain that the Consultation Document should work out a reasonable approach which is at the same time acceptable to the public by basing itself on the criteria set out in the ICCPR and in the Basic Law. I must emphasize once again that since Hong Kong is about to abandon its colonial status and become a city with a high degree of autonomy under the concept of "one country, two systems", many of the actions which we take or will take are actually steps restoring normalcy. This means that we should look at the related issues with an ordinary state of mind, and tackle them through pragmatic and sensible discussions. For the reasons I have given, Members belonging to the DAB will support the amendment to be moved by the Honourable Mrs Elsie TU. Thank you, Madam President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mrs Peggy LAM.
MRS PEGGY LAM (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Chief Executive's Office released the Consultation Document on Civil Liberties and Social Order last month and commenced an extensive public consultation exercise. So far, opinions in support of the relevant proposals or otherwise have been adequately expressed, and as a representative of the women in this community, I have also submitted my views to the Chief Executive's Office. In essence, I find the broad principle underlining the proposed provisions correct and desirable.
However, it is most surprising that even before the consultation exercise is over, some people have already hastened to cry out loudly and openly, dismissing it as a mock attempt at consultation. Since we all want to do good to Hong Kong, why is it impossible for all of us to remain objective and calm, and allow the consultation exercise to conduct itself smoothly, so that the eventually amended Public Order Ordinance and Societies Ordinance can serve the best overall interests of Hong Kong?
On the basis of what I have heard and seen over the past month, I am convinced that the Chief Executive's Office is really sincere in soliciting the views of all sides. So, I am sure that this is a real consultation exercise. Of course, it will be impossible for the decisions made at the end of the day to satisfy all, be they for or against the proposed amendments. However, this should have nothing to do with whether or not the Chief Executive's Office is sincere in its consultation exercise, for they are entirely two different matters.
We must first establish a broad principle, that is, that during our discussions on the proposed amendments to the Public Order Ordinance and the Societies Ordinance, while we must ensure that the exercise of individual liberties is not subject to any unnecessary restrictions, we must also see to it that the pursuit of such liberties is not allowed to adversely affect social order. In other words, there must be a right balance between the two.
Let us consider the Public Order Ordinance as an example. In recent years, the means used by demonstrators in assemblies and processions have shown signs of increasing violence, and there were even cases in which some demonstrators lay down in the street with LPG cylinders. In view of this, although the basic purpose of amending the Ordinance is supposed to fill a legal vacuum, we should also see to it that the specific amendments proposed take account of the prevailing situation by providing some guidelines for mass social movements, so that demonstrations and processions will not get out of control in the end.
Moving from this broad principle to details, I believe the Commissioner of Police would not reject an application without good reasons. In this respect, the Consultation Document has set out some restrictions on the powers to be exercised by the Commissioner, and it is even proposed that the organizer concerned be allowed to bring his or her case to an independent appeals committee. This arrangement is basically acceptable.
Having said that, I must point out that with respect to the notification period applicable to processions, the required seven-day prior notice can sometimes be very unrealistic. I have said that a 48-hour prior notice is basically appropriate, but in that case, the Commissioner of Police should be vested with discretionary powers to approve applications for processions at short notice. In this connection, it has been reported recently that the Chief Executive may amend his original proposals to give the Commissioner the discretionary powers to approve applications submitted less than 48 hours beforehand. If such reports are true, I welcome them.
Such a discretionary arrangement is not intended to discourage organizers of processions from notifying the police at the earliest opportunity. Rather, it is intended, under the premise of safeguarding public security and social order, to give the public more room to express their opinions through lawful actions.
Regarding the proposed amendments to the Societies Ordinance, although some sceptics claim that it will be difficult to implement the proposed provision on prohibiting local political organizations from establishing ties with their foreign counterparts, I still insist that the restriction concerned is warranted despite the difficulty claimed. On the other hand, in order to minimize unnecessary misunderstandings, there is a need to define "political organizations" clearly. This we can do by defining them as political parties or bodies with the objective of taking part in elections to the three tiers of government.
Of course, such a definition will lead to another problem. It is not at all easy to clearly define "political parties", for many local political parties are simply set up and registered as companies. Instead of being genuine reflections of the composition and nature of business of the organizations concerned, "political party" and "political group" are just some terms by which these organizations choose to call themselves.
Madam President, under the policy of "one country, two systems", and while Hong Kong enjoys a high degree of autonomy, we must not forget our concern for and obligations toward the State. The prevention of foreign political infiltration of the SAR, and even the State, concerns not only the interests of the SAR, but also those of the State. As a result, the restriction proposed is absolutely necessary.
That said, the concepts of national interests must be clearly defined, and this applies especially to "national security". I am of the view that in principle, "national security" should be defined to cover only "the territorial integrity and independence and self-government of the State". The scope of the definition should not be written too wide; otherwise, unnecessary public anxieties will result.
As for the treatment of Taiwan as a foreign country in the Consultation Document, I do not think that such an approach is at all appropriate. Under the principle of "One China", we should not regard Taiwan as a foreign country. One solution, I think, is for us to set up a special category for Taiwan, and under this special category, although Taiwan is not a foreign country, the political organizations of Hong Kong should still be barred from having any financial and material ties with the political organizations there.
Madam President, the views of the community on the Consultation Document are indeed vastly divergent. But, if only we can stick to our principle; if only the bills can safeguard the interests of the community and the State; if only the sound development of local political organizations is not hindered; if only Hong Kong is not hindered in its participation in non-political international organizations; if only the reputation of Hong Kong as an international cosmopolitan city is not tarnished; and, if only individual liberties in Hong Kong are not placed under any unnecessary restrictions, our efforts today will still, as a matter of certainty, bring yet more stability and prosperity to Hong Kong.
Madam President, these are my remarks.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Ambrose LAU.
MR AMBROSE LAU (in Cantonese): Madam President, since the release of the Consultation Document on Civil Liberties and Social Order, its proposals have led to numerous arguments in the community. Very often, people focus their arguments on some particular proposals, saying that some restrictions are too lenient while others are just too strict. Or, they may criticize that some definitions are not clear enough while others are too narrow in scope. They seldom touch upon the principle and spirit underlining the Consultation Document, nor do they bother to discuss its significance to the future government of the SAR.
At a time when we are pondering on whether the notification system applicable to processions and assemblies should be simplified; whether the societies registration system should be relaxed; whether there are any grey areas in the definition of "political organizations"; whether the concept of "national security" should be introduced to Hong Kong; and, whether we should prohibit aliens from donating to local political organizations and so on, we must base our consideration on several broad principles before we are able to understand the fundamental spirit of the Consultation Document.
First, the most important principle underlining the Consultation Document is that the SAR must legislate on the Public Order Ordinance and the Societies Ordinance in order to fill a legal vacuum in the future. As we are all aware, the reason why the Chief Executive's Office has to legislate on these two Ordinances is that, without conducting any discussions with the Chinese side, the British Hong Kong Administration has unilaterally amended these two Ordinances, thus violating both the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law. Consequently, the Standing Committee of the National people's Congress had to declare in accordance with Article 160 of the Basic Law that these two Ordinances as amended by the British Hong Kong Administration would not be adopted as laws of the SAR. So, in order to fill the resultant legal vacuum, there is a need for the executive branch of the SAR to widely consult the community and then request the Provisional Legislative Council to complete the required legislative work before 1 July 1997, so that relevant laws which can suit the needs of the SAR can be drawn up in good time.
Second, the Public Order Ordinance and the Societies Ordinance are laws which are absolutely indispensable when the SAR is set up. As a responsible government, the Chief Executive's Office needs to conduct legislative work relating to laws which are absolutely indispensable when the SAR is set up. This is an important principle, an important rationale, which underlines the submission of the relevant bills by the Chief Executive's Office to the Council. This also explains why the legislative work cannot wait until the setting up of the first Legislative Council.
Besides, the Hong Kong Progressive Alliance (HKPA) opines that one of the objective standards by which the Consultation Document is to be judged should be its compliance or otherwise with the relevant provisions in the Basic Law and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
We think that the proposed provisions in the Consultation Document, which cover a notification system and an appeal mechanism applicable to processions and demonstrations, a societies registration system and restrictions on the ties between local political organizations and their foreign counterparts, are all in line with the relevant provisions of the Basic Law. With them, the protection of human rights can be implemented through local laws. The HKPA maintains that only by enacting the relevant laws as quickly as possible can we effectively protect the human rights possessed by the six million people in Hong Kong. The Consultation Document is in fact in line with the Basic Law and the ICCPR, and is also able to balance individual rights against social obligations. The HKPA endorses and supports this very principle adopted in the Consultation Document.
Third, there is a practical need for the Consultation Document to propose some provisions for the purpose of restricting the ties between local and foreign organizations, and of preventing aliens and foreign political organizations from donating to local political organizations.
Foreign political donations are a subject of serious concern among countries all over the world. The acceptance of foreign financial contributions by the Democratic Party, for example, has stirred up quite a storm in the United States. And, in the United Kingdom, the new Prime Minister, Tony BLAIR, has also said publicly that the United Kingdom would need to legislate on the prevention of foreign political donations.
As we all know, Hong Kong and the Mainland are closely related, geographically, politically and economically. In order to prevent Hong Kong from becoming a battlefield for Chinese and foreign political forces, we must bar foreign forces from meddling in Hong Kong politics. In order to prevent foreign forces from using Hong Kong as an outpost where anti-Chinese activities are conducted, the SAR needs to enact laws to prohibit foreign forces from controlling the political organizations of Hong Kong.
The effective implementation or otherwise of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy" for the SAR will depend on whether or not we the people of Hong Kong can uphold these principles firmly.
Since some of the areas and concepts dealt with in the Consultation Document still require further exploration and study, the HKPA will continue to put forward relevant opinions, and we will also explore other feasible alternatives during our scrutiny of the eventually submitted bills. But, it must be emphasized that the HKPA finds the principle underlining the Consultation Document sensible, reasonable and lawful.
With these remarks, I support the amendment to be moved by the Honourable Mrs Elsie TU.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mrs Miriam LAU.
MRS MIRIAM LAU (in Cantonese): Madam President, since the release of the Consultation Document on Civil Liberties and Social Order, the Chief Executive's Office has emphasized time and again that a balance would be struck between civil liberties and social order in its amendments to the Societies Ordinance and Public Order Ordinance.
The issue of striking a balance between civil liberties and social order is not strange to many Members present today. In fact, as early as 1989 when the enactment of a Bill Of Rights Ordinance (BORO) was brewing in Hong Kong, the public at large and even Members of the then Legislative Council already started to weigh human rights against the rule of law, and civil liberties against social order, trying incessantly to choose between more freedom at the expense of cutting the powers of law enforcement agencies on the one hand and less freedom in exchange for more effective law enforcement on the other.
The community at large underwent a long period of discussions. Members of the then Legislative Council also considered and debated the issue in great depths. In the end, we managed to find a right balance between civil liberties and social order, and this is reflected in the BORO enacted in 1991 and in the subsequent amendments made to the Societies Ordinance and Public Order Ordinance to take account of the BORO. Some of the Members who supported these three Ordinances at that time are present today. As a balance has been struck, and as no troubles have since occurred in Hong Kong which can convince us that the balance is misplaced, it stands to reason to believe that even if we want to strike a new balance, it cannot possibly deviate from the original balance to any great extent. As a result, when we try to amend the Societies Ordinance and Public Order Ordinance, yet again, we should stick to the original balance as far as possible by avoiding any drastic changes. I believe that given a state of equilibrium, any deliberate attempts to strike a new balance will only lead to a state of disequilibrium.
Madam President, when the Honourable CHAN Choi-hi discussed the Societies Ordinance and Public Order Ordinance just now, he proposed that provisional legislation should be enacted as a solution to the problem of a legal vacuum, before permanent legislation are drawn up in the future. His advice may be well-intentioned. But, he should be reminded that the adoption of provisional legislation may in fact be a mainland practice, and is certainly not a legislative approach to which Hong Kong is accustomed.
As far as I know, at present, the mainland authorities may enforce some ordinances or regulations in the form of provisional legislation as and when required by circumstances. Such ordinances or regulations are referred to as temporary ordinances or temporary regulations. My understanding is that temporary ordinances or temporary regulations are enacted as interim measures when the authorities want to legislate on some particular matters, but are somehow temporarily unable to formulate a comprehensive and well- thought- out piece of legislation. And, when a comprehensive and well-thought-out piece of legislation is formulated in the future, permanent legislation will be enacted. In Hong Kong, however, where common law is practised, there is no such concept as provisional legislation, and all ordinances are enacted after detailed and thorough consideration. In Hong Kong, legislation is legislation, and there is no such thing as provisional legislation, let alone any distinction between temporary ordinances and permanent ordinances. If we detect any problems with an ordinance, we will start a new legislative process, and amend it to suit the circumstances.
According to the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law, under the concept of "one country, two systems", the socialist system and policies will not be practised in Hong Kong, and the laws previously in force in Hong Kong, including common law, shall be maintained. Therefore, it is inappropriate for us to introduce mainland legal concepts into the laws of Hong Kong.
Madam President, these are my remarks.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHIM Pui-chung.
MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, this is the first motion debate following the establishment of the Provisional Legislative Council. I am pleased to notice that only four Members are absent. Therefore, though many Members are forced to sit here and listen to others' speeches, our situation here is far better than that in the Legislative Council now, where, sometimes, fewer than 10 Members are present when others are speaking. This already shows that the Provisional Legislative Council is a success. Madam President, the theme of the motion debate today is simply the Consultation Document published by the Chief Executive's Office on two bills. We have to fully understand that these things do happen and these cases do exist. From the media, and from the people's discussions, we can notice that some people are always talking about a so-called "reinstatement of the draconian laws". Up till today, what "draconian laws" have been reinstated? The simple fact is that a handful of people are just trying to stir up social misunderstanding and chaos and to create public anxieties about the future SAR Government and the transitional period by exploiting the leeway available to them and the people's lack of understanding of the laws and ordinances of Hong Kong. In this connection, I hope that the media and all the other parties concerned will realize that all the past worries expressed on a so-called "reinstatement of draconian laws" should have been dispelled entirely by now.
The Honourable Ambrose LAU has just explained why the National People's Congress invoked Article 160 of the Basic Law to reject these two Ordinances. The reason was that without mutual consent, the British Hong Kong Administration amended these two Ordinances in 1992 and 1995 in defiance of Sino-British agreements. Some Members sought to justify such amendments by saying that they are "quite desirable". But, it is not a question of desirability; rather, it is actually a question of fundamental principle, and it is this very principle that has led to the establishment of the Provisional Legislative Council. Similarly, in the case of the political reform package, this principle has also led to the question of whether or not there should be a "through train". Therefore, while we welcome views and discussions on the Consultation Document, we must be fully aware of another argument in the media and the community, and that is that this consultation is bogus. This is actually yet another conspiracy following the one on "reinstatement of draconian laws". Everyone has to look clearly at this second conspiracy, too. As Members of the Provisional Legislative Council, or even as Members the Legislative Council, we have to guide the thoughts of the public and help them understand the current realities. Members have expressed different views on the Consultation Document. That is perfectly normal. If we, as Members of this Council, do not care about these issues and have no knowledge or understanding about them, how can we possibly justify our presence here? How can we possibly justify our role in making laws for Hong Kong? Therefore, I hope that all of us will express our views on the various related issues.
Regarding the consultation, I myself totally agree that the police should be given greater powers to control activities such as processions. We have to really understand that as far as the current situation is concerned, because of changes in our social environment, many processions do more or less affect the public. At present, there is a favourable climate for demonstrations and processions in the community, and so, people can be a bit more tolerant. But after 1 July, those who are particularly enthusiastic about China or some patriots may find some particular demonstrations altogether disagreeable. The City Forum held in the Victoria Park can serve as an example to illustrate this point. At a typical session of the City Forum, many views are expressed, and when the floor or guest speakers are expressing their views, unruly behaviour is often observed. Therefore, if someone says that in the future, demonstrations and processions in Hong Kong will be able to enjoy the same degree of freedom and recognition as they do now, I dare say that they will not. Under such circumstances, the police or the controlling authorities must take into account the scale of the problems in the future, and make a decision accordingly. Hence, it is necessary to introduce amendments. One should not query the need for amendments by saying that even with one thousand demonstrations now, no problems have occurred. Our vision must be far-sighted and clear.
Concerning the other ordinance, I think that the only problem lies with the term "foreign countries". I have also discussed the issue involving countries, and most people have suggested that "foreign countries" should be defined as "any places outside Hong Kong". However, there is now another suggestion, and that is that since China is the sovereign state of Hong Kong, it should not be mentioned in the same breath with other places. If we really have to look at the issue in this way, I think that the amendment should aim at defining "foreign countries" as "any places other than China and Hong Kong". But, I am more inclined to accepting the definition of "foreign countries" as "any places outside Hong Kong". Of course, we agree that mainland China, that is, the Chinese Government, is the sovereign of Hong Kong. However, under the principle of "one country, two systems", it will be more desirable to avoid any mainland intervention in the affairs of some local political parties, for this may result in unfairness and impair the fundamental spirit of "one country, two systems". That said, if we are to take account of the opinions of China, we should define "foreign countries" as "places other than Hong Kong and mainland China" so as to resolve the problems involving Taiwan.
Madam President, in the future, there will be many more issues which Honourable colleagues will have to expend time on. Nevertheless, this kind of motion debates will still give us very good chances to prepare ourselves for running in the elections of 1998. I so submit.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr TSO WONG Man-yin.
DR TSO WONG MAN-YIN (in Cantonese): Thank you, Madam President. I would like to concentrate on the necessity for incorporating the concept of "national security" into the amendments to the Public Order Ordinance and the Societies Ordinance.
Looking back on the consultation exercise over the past three weeks, we can notice that the greatest concern of the various bodies in the community with respect to the concept of "national security" is that the proposed definition is much too vague and may thus easily lead to abuses by law enforcement agencies. Some are also worried by the fact that the Hong Kong police have never before made any judgments relating to the concept of "jeopardizing national security". Others worry that the Commissioner of Police may not have the ability and experience required to judge what behaviour would contribute to "jeopardizing national security", and that this may lead to judgments characterized by "excessive control even to the extent of victimizing the innocent", thus prejudicing the freedom of association and of assembly enjoyed by the public.
As a matter of fact, however, the concept of "national security" is nothing new to the people of Hong Kong, and the Hong Kong Government has been pursuing similar polices in this respect over the past years. Under the British Hong Kong Administration, the restrictions imposed by the Crimes Ordinance, Official Secrets Act and Societies Ordinance are used as means to prohibit all activities in Hong Kong from posing any threats to the security of the United Kingdom itself. Hence, before 1992, the Societies Ordinance prohibited the registration of any society that "is used for any purpose prejudicial to the peace, welfare or good order in Hong Kong". When the Hong Kong Government formulated the BORO, it also borrowed the concept of "national security" mentioned in the ICCPR, and incorporated it into Articles 17 and 18 of the BORO which deal with the right of peaceful assembly and freedom of association respectively. Even when the Government relaxed its control on societies in 1992, what it did was just some changes in wording ─ changing "prejudicial to the peace, welfare or good order in Hong Kong" to "prejudicial to the security of Hong Kong". And, in this definition, "security" is interpreted on the basis of the ICCPR. Moreover, in the Official Secrets Bill that has been put before the Legislative Council, the Hong Kong Government also makes several references to "the safety and interests of the United Kingdom".
So, when the Hong Kong Government and some organizations in the community criticize the Consultation Document for applying the concept of "national security" adopted in the ICCPR, they are actually acting on double standards. We think that this is rather unfair.
Some critics also argue that according to the definition laid down by the United Nations, the concept of "national security" in the ICCPR would be invoked to place restrictions on the exercise of civil liberties only when there is a need to safeguard the existence and territorial integrity of a state or when its political independence is under military threat. Therefore, they argue, the concept of "national security" should not be incorporated into the Public Order Ordinance and Societies Ordinance hastily. Starting from 1 July this year, China will resume the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong; in other words, Hong Kong will become a part of China which has the duty to uphold the image of "One China" and the overall interests of the State. After the resumption of sovereignty, if a group of people organize themselves into a society with the aim of supporting Tibetan independence, or if banners with slogans supporting the "independence of Taiwan" or "the independence of Tibet" are put up in processions, should the SAR Government permit the existence of such societies or the conduct of this kind of activities?
Before answering the above question, I would like to quote for Members' reference the findings of an opinion survey recently conducted by the One Country Two System Economic Research. Seven hundred and eighty people aged 18 or above were interviewed; 61.2% of them considered that for the sake of social and national security the Government could cancel the registration of some particular societies, and another 65.9% agreed that the Government could prohibit demonstrations and processions for the same reason. Over half of the interviewees supported the action of the Chief Executive's Office. These findings indicate that the people of Hong Kong are aware that with the economic, social and political ties between Hong Kong and China after the former has become a part of the latter, some people may deliberately instigate acts of sedition in Hong Kong so as to influence the state policies of China. Therefore, there is a practical need to incorporate restrictions into the amendments on the basis of "national security".
In order to provide against the executive abusing its powers to stifle the freedom of association and of assembly in Hong Kong by frequently resorting to the excuse of national security, we think that the eventually amended Public Order Ordinance and Societies Ordinance should retain an appeals mechanism, under which an appeals committee comprising the Chief Executive in Council and chaired by a retired judge is to be formed to deal with any appeals regarding the registration of societies and application for public processions. If the public are not satisfied with the relevant rulings, they may appeal to the courts for a judicial review.
On the whole, we think that a separate law similar to the Crimes Ordinance should be draw up to codify the provisions of Article 23 of the Basic Law, so that acts involving national security can be dealt with in a comprehensive scale.
Madam President, with these remarks, I support the Honourable Mrs Elsie TU's amendment.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Frederick FUNG.
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Thank you, Madam President. I would like to respond to the remarks of some Members before mentioning my most important point. First of all, the Honourable CHENG Kai-nam has queried the Hong Kong Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood (ADPL) on the issue of "black and white". The ADPL's official colour is yellow, not black nor white. In the course of preparing the Consultation Document, the Chief Executive's Office, I believe, must have found out that the ADPL has neither turned black nor white. We are essentially the same ADPL, yellow in colour. I think that the Secretary for Policy Co-ordination must know what I am saying for he is smiling. As for Mr CHAN Choi-hi's amendment, we do not agree to it.
The Honourable Mrs Miriam LAU has given a clear explanation on the rationale behind provisional legislation and the problems of introducing provisional legislation into Hong Kong. I will object to any provisional legislation, for if there are three kinds of laws, namely, provisional laws, formally enacted laws and laws currently in force in Hong Kong, provisional laws may well be regarded as inferior. This is actually wrong because even the underlying concept is not valid. Hence, we feel that Mr CHAN Choi-hi's amendment is not acceptable and I will not comment on his other suggestions in further detail.
My third point is on Members' remarks regarding the Societies Ordinance, an issue of great concern to us. In the Consultation Document, the biggest problem related to the Societies Ordinance is that the definition of political organizations is to be applied to the registration of societies. In general, kai-fong associations, residents' bodies and even mutual aid committees are all societies to a certain extent, though they are registered in some other different ways. Therefore, the societies which people usually have in mind are those with ordinary social objectives. But now, political organizations are included in the Societies Ordinance, and in political science (I am a student of political science) political organizations may well be classified as political parties. Worse still, the term "political party" is not used. Then, when political organizations are put alongside ordinary societies, people are expected to understand that ordinary societies are not the targets. So, confusion will easily arise because political organizations are to register under the same ordinance. I believe that if the SAR Government really wants people to draw a clear distinction, it would be better for it to draw up a clearly separate political party law in the future. Alternatively, it can discard the term "political party" and adopt a new name which can suggest clearly what organizations are being targeted at. Following this, it can be stipulated that such organizations are not allowed to accept donations from foreign political organizations. The only thing which the ADPL can agree to is that donations from foreign political bodies should be prohibited. I believe that, in such a way, further controversy over this issue will be eliminated. The present controversy has actually stemmed from the putting two different types of organizations together. As a result, the type of organizations not being targeted at may feel being victimized, complaining that the objectives of the other type of organizations are largely responsible for the present confusion.
As for "national security", I believe that basically no one will object to it. However, in case anyone in Hong Kong engages in acts of secession, or involves himself in bringing about the independence of Hong Kong or Tibet, Article 23 of the Basic Law has already laid down adequate provisions which empower the future SAR Government to draw up local laws to deal with these secession problems. Therefore, the necessity or otherwise of incorporating the concept of "national security" into the two Ordinances really merits our consideration or second thoughts. Of course, I agree that if the Provisional Legislative Council does not deal with Article 23 now, so when the first Legislative Council deals with it, it must draw a very clear definition for the concept of "national security". The ADPL has proposed a definition but since the Honourable Bruce LIU has already talked about it, I will not repeat it here.
Madam President, the last point I would like to make is: which is the most controversial point I find in the Consultation Document? The most controversial point is the confusion about rights and restrictions. Let us read the Basic Law. The second paragraph of Article 39 of the Basic Law reads, "The rights and freedoms enjoyed by Hong Kong residents shall not be restricted unless as prescribed by law." Rights and freedoms come first, and they are followed by restrictions, and restrictions shall not contravene the provisions of the first paragraph. In other words, the first paragraph is more important. The second thing that I want to read is the two Articles of the International Convenant mentioned in page 4 of the Consultation Document. I would like to read the relevant section in the International Covenant. Article 22(1) states that everyone shall have the freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of his interests. Article 22(2) reads, "no restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right". Actually, the covenant puts "no restrictions" before restrictions prescribed by law in the interests of national security, public safety, public order, and the protection of public health or morals. If we look at the order of the two, we can see that "rights" are placed before "restrictions". Actually, this is a matter of priority, not a matter of balance. Even from the Basic Law angle, this is also a matter of priority because in Article 39, rights also precede restrictions. Even in the arrangement of chapters in the Basic Law, the fundamental rights and duties of the residents are contained in Chapter III while the powers of the Government (including those of the executive and the legislature) are contained in Chapter IV and beyond. The rights of residents also precede those of the ruling authorities. I feel that such an arrangement in the Basic Law does carry a special meaning.
Looking at issue from this angle, I can see that the required balance between civil liberties and social order as mentioned in the Consultation Document is in fact found in existing laws, evident from the Annexes of the Document. Members can turn to B2 of Annex B in the Document. Annex B2 is about the Public Order Ordinance 1995 and its implementation. Of course, we only have to notify the Commissioner of Police of our intention to hold a public procession , for we have the right to do so and all we have to do is to notify him. But that does not mean that there is no restriction, only that the restriction comes after rights. Where is the restriction? It is in B3 of the Document. Let me read it out, "The statutory conditions must be complied with and the Commissioner of Police may also impose additional conditions in the interests of pubic safety or public order (s. 15)." In other words, there is a restriction and this restriction seeks to balance the right granted to us by way of other laws. Let me cite an example. We say that newspapers have freedom of speech. When a newspaper is published and if you find that an article in it slanders you, you can sue it for breaking a certain law. However, the publisher does not have to ask the Government beforehand whether he may publish a newspaper today. This is the difference between rights and restrictions; rights should always come before restrictions and should not be balanced by restrictions. The rights granted in a law should be balanced by other laws, not by restrictions in the same law. I think that the rights we should possess is at the core of the present controversy. Therefore, I support Mr Bruce LIU's original motion only. Thank you, Madam President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Siu-yee.
MR WONG SIU-YEE (in Cantonese): Madam President, in response to the remarks made by Mr Bruce LIU, Mr CHAN Choi-hi and Mrs Selina CHOW, let me centre my comments on the principles involved.
In the Consultation Document, the Chief Executive's Office raises three basic principles on governing amendments to the Societies Ordinance and the Public Order Ordinance. During the consultation period, these three basic principles received widespread approval and recognition from the various sectors in the community. The first and second principles raised in the motion and the amendments moved by Members of this Council are in fact in line with the first principle put forward in the Consultation Document, but the third and fourth principles put forward by Members are open to question.
Madam President, the third principle raised by Mr Bruce LIU reads, "Restrictions on the freedom of association, of assembly and procession and so on, in comparison with those imposed by existing legislation under the British colonial regime in Hong Kong, should not be tightened or be unreasonable, and the aim of the legislative amendments should be to allow latitude." Actually, the amendments proposed in the Consultation Document are already slacker than the relevant laws in the United States, Canada, European countries and Australia. However, no matter how slack they are, there must be a standard and that is the second basic principle stated in the Consultation Document, which reads, "The protection of human rights must not be compromised, nor should social stability be put to unnecessary risk, having regard to social and political development in the HKSAR". The "existing legislation" mentioned by Mr Bruce LIU in the phrase "in comparison with those imposed by existing legislation under the British colonial regime in Hong Kong" refers very clearly to the Societies Ordinance after its amendments in 1992. Yet, the precise reason for amending these two existing Ordinances yet again is that they were drastically amended by the Hong Kong Government in violation of the Basic Law and are unable to strike a reasonable balance between civil liberties and social order. The principle underlying the amendments proposed by the Chief Executive's Office is not to tighten or introduce unreasonably restrictions; rather, it aims to tie in with the provisions of the Basic Law and the ICCPR as applied to Hong Kong. By the same token, the introduction of the concept of national security is actually prescribed in the ICCPR and is in line with the need to maintain the independence and sovereignty of the state under the principle of "one country, two systems". It should not be regarded as any "acts of tightening" or "tightened or ...... unreasonable restrictions".
Madam President, Mr CHAN Choi-hi's amendment proposes to introduce some provisional legislation to fill the legal vacuum, and he claims that his proposal is based on the need to secure the confidence of the people of Hong Kong and to allay their anxieties. Regarding the arguments on whether or not laws should be divided into "provisional legislation" and "permanent legislation", I suppose no laws are in fact literally permanent, especially in the case of non-constitutional laws. The problem is that some people always insist that the Provisional Legislative Council is inadequately representative and is thus ill-qualified to legislate for the SAR. Influenced by such an attitude, they would of course think that this Council can draw up provisional laws only. This is actually a prejudice and a misconception. Although the Provisional Legislative Council is the provisional legislature of the SAR, this by no means implies that the Provisional Legislative Council can make "provisional laws" only. In fact, the laws enacted by the Provisional Legislative Council so far, covering the right of abode, the use of the national flag, national emblem, SAR flag and SAR emblem and the designation of holidays and so on, are not "provisional legislation". If provisional legislation are drawn up to tackle the problems related to the Societies Ordinance and Public Order Ordinance as proposed, a bad precedent will be set, thus dealing a blow to the credibility and representative image of the Provisional Legislative Council. What is more, the authority of other important SAR laws passed by the Provisional Legislative Council will also be shaken. Therefore, Mr CHAN Choi-hi's amendment is not desirable.
Madam President, in her amendment, Mrs Selina CHOW puts forward a fourth principle which reads "the anxiety of the people of Hong Kong about their existing freedom being undermined by the amendments should be allayed as far as possible". This is, of course, one aspect of the issue. But, another aspect of the issue is that we also need to amend these two Ordinances so as to allay as much as possible the people's anxiety about the weakening of the rule of law and social order. In fact, since the British Hong Kong Administration drastically amended the original Societies Ordinance and Public Order Ordinance to tie in with the overriding BORO provisions, law-abiding citizens have not been able to enjoy any enhanced protection of their human rights and freedoms. Quite the contrary, adverse impacts on social order and the rule of law have resulted, thus weakening the human rights and freedoms enjoyed by the majority law-abiding citizens. Many people, including foreign investors, Queen's Counsels, Lords of the Privy Council, the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption, the Independent Commissioner of Correctional Services and so on have all shown their concern over the British Hong Kong Administration's extensive alteration of the original Public Order Ordinance and Societies Ordinance to tie in with the overriding BORO. Hence, "anxieties" are of two types: one is the people's anxieties about their existing freedom being weakened; the other is the people's anxieties about the rule of law and social order being weakened and undermined. Sole emphasis on either will be biased.
Madam President, the Honourable Mrs Elsie TU's amendment actually leads us back to the sound foundation constituted by the three basic principles put forth in the Consultation Document. Of course, we cannot say that the motion concerned and the related amendments are all redundant or deviate from the basic principles. However, if this Council can make use of this motion debate as a means of further clarifying related misconceptions and biases, and if the Chief Executive can thus be urged to listen in earnest to public opinions resulting in better conceived amendments to the Societies Ordinance and the Public Order Ordinance, we will have served a positive purpose. With these remarks, Madam President, I support Mrs Elsie TU's amendment. Thank you.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): There are six Members waiting to deliver their speeches. Let me now check their order of speaking: Dr Charles YEUNG, Mr HUI Yin-fat, Dr TANG Siu-tong, Mr LAU Kong-wah, Mr James TIEN and Mr LEUNG Chun-ying. I will now invite Dr Charles YEUNG to speak.
DR CHARLES YEUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Honourable Bruce LIU's motion consists of three parts. On basis of the principle cited in the Consultation Document, I totally agree to the first part of the motion which advocates that amendments to the Societies Ordinance and the Public Order Ordinance should conform with the Basic Law.
I feel that there is indeed a practical meaning for Mr Bruce LIU to take pains to mention the Basic Law in his motion. In fact, the three tiers of protection provided for in the Basic Law can serve as a guiding reference for amendments to the Public Order Ordinance and Societies Ordinance.
Article 4 under the General Principles of the Basic Law reads, "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall safeguard the rights and freedoms of the residents of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and of other persons in the Region in accordance with law." This can be considered as the first tier of the promise to protect human rights. Second, the Basic Law devotes a whole chapter (Chapter III) to specify the fundamental rights and duties of the residents, and this can be considered as the second tier of the promise. In addition, the Basic Law goes to great lengths to bring up the ICCPR, and provides that the provisions of the covenant as applied to Hong Kong shall be implemented through local laws. This is the third tier of the promise.
Since the Basic Law has laid down such a thorough protection of human rights, amendments to the Public Order Ordinance and Societies Ordinance in conformity with the Basic Law will naturally enhance the Hong Kong people's confidence with respect to human rights and the rule of law.
For the purpose of keeping in line with the Basic Law, Mr Bruce LIU should have worded the second part of his motion more precisely. Article 39 of the Basic Law refers to "the provisions (of the international covenants) as applied to Hong Kong." This specification in the Basic Law should be mentioned very clearly in the motion so as to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings.
The third part of the motion says that the restrictions proposed in the Consultation Document on civil liberties, including freedom of association, of assembly and of procession and so on, in comparison with those imposed by existing legislation under the British colonial rule in Hong Kong, should not be tightened. I believe that this point requires some scrutiny.
That Hong Kong is a colony is a viewpoint which calls for our special attention. The Chinese Government has repeatedly pointed out to the international community that Hong Kong is not a colony. The first sentence of the Basic Law reads: "Hong Kong has been part of the territory of China since ancient times". Therefore, in the present context, the continued use of the term "colony" is not quite so appropriate. What is more, we simply should not refer to all the laws of Hong Kong before the handover as colonial laws.
As we know, the Preliminary Working Committee and the Preparatory Committee have conducted an in-depth discussion on what should be meant by "the laws previously in force in Hong Kong". One school of thought is that "the laws previously in force" should mean the laws of Hong Kong before 1 July 1997. Another school of thought is that the laws before the signing of the Sino-British Joint Declaration are "the laws previously in force". To define "the laws previously in force" is no easy task in itself. So, if we now add in "the laws in force under the British colonial regime", more confusion and misunderstanding will easily arise.
Mr Bruce LIU's motion carries two implications: all laws in force before 1 July 1997 are colonial laws; all colonial laws are necessarily harsh.
However, the fact is that on the eve of its withdrawal from Hong Kong, Britain has amended the laws of Hong Kong again and again. As a result, existing laws are very different from their previous versions. In particular, with the extensive amendments introduced to the Public Order Ordinance and Societies Ordinance in 1992 and 1995, the notion that colonial laws are necessarily harsh has become highly questionable.
Many recent opinion polls have shown that with the relaxation of the laws on public security and social order, a gradual deterioration of law and order has become the biggest worry of the people around the transition. So, if we blindly insist on further relaxing the restrictions imposed by laws drawn up by the Hong Kong Government, and force the SAR Government to legislate on this basis, will Members think that the people's anxieties can thus be allayed? The recent massive social movement in Taiwan triggered off by bad social order suffices to show that a precautionary attitude should be the proper attitude adopted by a government.
In my opinion, when drawing up laws on the maintenance of public security and social order, the SAR Government must follow the most important principle of striking a balance between individual liberties and public interests. The people's needs to stage demonstrations and processions and the interests of the whole community must be taken care of at the same time. Only this can provide a correct legislative direction.
With these remarks, Madam President, I support the Honourable Mrs Elsie TU's amendment.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr TANG Siu-tong.
DR TANG SIU-TONG (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Honourable Bruce LIU said in his speech that amendments to the Public Order Ordinance and Societies Ordinance must comply with the provisions of the Basic Law and the international covenant on human rights as applied to Hong Kong. Since he added in the words "as applied to Hong Kong" in his speech, and since he also considers that a right balance should be struck between individual liberties and social order and safety, it seems that he has gradually become supportive of the Honourable Mrs Elsie TU's amendment. And, the views stated in Mrs Elsie TU's amendment are shared by me and the Hong Kong Progressive Alliance (HKPA). Article 23 of the Basic Law prohibits political organizations or bodies of the SAR from establishing ties with foreign political organizations or bodies, and this provision has been criticized by many. However, this provision was drawn up in accordance with the Societies Ordinance before it was amended and its aim is to prevent the societies in Hong Kong from being controlled by foreign political forces. This restriction is not unreasonable. It is a measure to protect national security. Such a restriction on the political activities of aliens is acceptable by international standards. Since the definition of political organizations has not been clearly stated in the Consultation Document, I wish to express my views in that regard.
In the Consultation Document, the Chief Officer's Office points out that "political organizations" should be defined as "societies which directly participate in political activities relating to government institutions and comment on public affairs as their main objective". And, participation in political activities means the "direct recommendation of candidates to take part in elections to the three tiers of government", and the Chief Executive's Office also to "political organization" as a "political party" in its press releases. Regarding the definition of "political organizations", the HKPA thinks that some related areas still need further clarification.
First of all, the Consultation Document should define very clearly whether "political organizations" are simply "political parties", and words such as "should be" and "mainly are" contain ambiguities. What does it mean by "should be"? By "should not be"? By "main"? By "secondary"? If an organization's primary objective is to enhance the communication and understanding among its members, and participation in political activities is just its secondary objective, how should we classify such a body? As far as the formulation of laws is concerned, unnecessary misunderstanding on the part of the public will be minimized if the use of vague and general terms can be avoided.
Moreover, the meaning of the word "and" in the phrase "participate in political activities relating to government institutions and comment on public affairs" has to be clarified too. The Consultation Document must explain clearly whether "participating in political activities" and "commenting on public affairs" are two totally distinct conditions. Should an organization be considered a "political organization" only when it meets these two conditions? Or, just by meeting either of the conditions? In other words, is an organization which "only comments on public affairs but does not participate in political activities" a political organization? How about an organization which "only participates in political activities but does not comment on public affairs"? Although "participating in political activities" frequently involves "commenting on public affairs", it is not impossible that there exist some organizations which "only participate in political activities". For example, if an organization only recommends its members to run in elections, and if this organization publicizes its election platform without actually commenting on politics, then how should this organization be classified? In fact, if we decide that only "political organizations" can be defined as political parties, the bodies which only comment on public affairs will not come under the statutory control.
On the other hand, problems will still arise even if the Consultation Document defines "political organizations" as political parties because the definition of "political parties" in the Consultation Document is too narrow. According to the classic definition given in textbooks, any organization which aims to gain political power can be considered as a political party. Under this definition, a political party can of course, as intended by the Chief Executive's Office, refer to an organization which seeks to win political powers and join the government by obtaining votes in elections. However, a political party thus defined can also refer to an organization which obtains political power (that is, a place in government institutions) without going through elections. In other words, with the exception of those illegal organizations which seek to become a part of government institutions or even to overthrow the existing regime by military means such as revolts or war, some organizations with members appointed by the government to decision-making committees can also be considered as political parties, though they do not involve themselves in any political activities. Therefore, the Consultation Document should give more thoughts to whether or not there should be a broader definition of "political parties".
However, the HKPA feels that even if the Consultation Document defines "political organizations" as political parties and adopts a broader definition, it still falls short of perfection because it fails to deal with the very problem which the Chief Executive's Office has intended to deal with, that is, the problem concerning pressure groups which aim to influence government decisions without obtaining political power. That being the case, the sizeable number of political critics groups the influences of which are by no means weak will not be brought under the ambit of the Societies Ordinance.
In view of this, the HKPA suggests that the Consolation Document should define "political organizations" as "those societies which directly participate in political activities or comment on public affairs". This means that the word "and" as originally used in the Document should be changed to "or" and the words "as their main objective" should be deleted. There are three advantages with the HKPA's suggestion:
1. The dispute concerning "and" and "main objective" can be avoided;
2. The confusion about whether or not "participating in political activities" and "commenting on public affairs" are two distinct concepts can be avoided; and
3. The definition of "political organizations" can be enhanced in clarity.
Madam President, I so submit.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Yin-fat.
MR HUI YIN-FAT (in Cantonese): Thank you, Madam President.
The Consultation Document on Civil Liberties and Social Order published by the Chief Executive's Office on the issue of amending the Public Order Ordinance and Societies Ordinance has attracted many different views from the various sectors of the community.
The public consultation exercise for the Document is now over, and the Chief Executive's Office will put before this Council the Public Order (Amendment) Bill and the Societies (Amendment) Bill within the coming weeks. This Council will have to complete all the required legislative procedures before 30 June this year to avoid a legal vacuum after 1 July resulting from the repeal of these two Ordinances by the National People's Congress. I believe that the discussions on the Ordinances will continue in the community for some time.
As the representative of the social welfare sector in the Provisional Legislative Council, I would like to make use of the opportunity provided by this motion debate on the Consultation Document to give a consolidated account of the views on amending the Public Order Ordinance and Societies Ordinance which I have collected from non-governmental welfare agencies and their staff.
Regarding the amendments to the Societies Ordinance, I do not support the provision that a society must apply to the Societies Officer (the Commissioner of Police) for registration. This is because, at present, non-governmental social service organizations, as service providers, are encouraging their clients to play an active part. Therefore, it is very important that self-help groups, such as district concern groups, can be formed freely. What is more, the present notification system is more capable of protecting freedom of association. And, since the existing notification system has covered all societies, there is no need to introduce a new mechanism of exemption from societies registration.
Nor do I support another proposal in the Document under which the Societies Officer may, in consultation with the Secretary for Security, refuse to register a society in the interest of national security, public safety or public order because all these reasons lack clear definitions. Members of the public will find it difficult to grasp such reasons. Not only this, the vague definitions may even give rise to abuses and inappropriate applications in the course of law enforcement.
I have also heard some voluntary agencies expressing the worry that once connections with foreign political bodies are prohibited, and once the acceptance of any forms of financial aids from aliens or foreign organizations are disallowed, their normal co-operation and ties with foreign organizations will be hampered. In particular, some international voluntary agencies operating in Hong Kong, religious organizations and non-government institutions relying mainly on financial support from foreign missionaries will be worst-hit.
Madam President, let me now discuss the amendments to the Public Order Ordinance. Although I agree that a balance must be struck between civil liberties and public order, I object to the proposal that a "Notice of No Objection" has to be obtained from the Commissioner of Police before a public procession may take place, for the present system of prior notification is already able to balance civil liberties against social order. Besides, since the system of prior notification was implemented, despite the relatively extreme ways in which some demonstrators chose to voice their views, the order of Hong Kong as a whole has not been affected in the slightest bit, and no riots have occurred. The proposed system is actually no different from the former application system, and will only serve to reduce the rights to peaceful expression of one's needs and opinions enjoyed by the public, especially the vulnerable and social welfare agencies.
What is more, it is also proposed that the authorities may turn down an application for procession in the interest of national security, public safety and public order. But these grounds also lack clear-cut definitions. I hope that the Chief Executive's Office will pay particular attention to this point when drafting the amendment bills so that difficulties in law enforcement and abuses can be avoided.
Lastly, I deeply believe that human rights, freedom and the rule of law are the fundamental factors which maintain social progress and promote social development. In the interests of the public, and even for the sake of our sustained development, stability and prosperity, it is very important that a set of fair and reasonable laws on freedom of assembly, of procession, of demonstration and of association is formulated to allay, as far as possible, the people's worries that their freedoms might be reduced.
Madam President, I so submit.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAU Kong-wah.
MR LAU KONG-WAH (in Cantonese): Madam President, regarding the Consultation Document on Civil Liberties and Social Order, neither one-sided sentimental support nor one-sided bitter objection can produce a rational discussion. Rather, these two kinds of attitude will only affect one's ability to see things in a balanced manner. We need a reasonable society and we also need a government which listens to reasons.
In regard to the Societies Ordinance, the Chief Executive's Office proposes a principle that foreign political forces should be prohibited from influencing Hong Kong politics. I think that this principle is perfectly correct. We have to understand that the modern-day international political arena is still very much centered on national interests, and the nationals of each country will put their respective national interests before everything. At a time when countries in the world are still divided into sheep and the tigers, it is only natural and necessary that, for the sake of safety, the sheep have to erect fences to fend off aggrandizements. And this concept has to be established upon the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administration Region.
At the infancy of its existence, the SAR Government has to draw up a philosophy of governing Hong Kong ─ a philosophy which can implement the principle of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong". Besides giving us a proper approach to our relationship with the Central Government, this philosophy should also enable us to handle our ties with the international community properly.
While we dismiss the "long arm of control" from the Central Government, we at the same time do not wish to see the "meddling foot" of foreign political forces; as we refuse to have a "backstage ruler", we also have to reject a foreign "saviour"; and when we fight for "a high degree of autonomy" from the Central Government, we have to tell the international community firmly that as far as its own affairs are concerned, Hong Kong wants to have "complete autonomy".
The recent meeting between Mr Martin LEE and President CLINTON, as far as I can see, has not brought any elation to the people of Hong Kong. Some public opinions have even regarded it as a cause for concern. To me, the photograph of the two actually depicts a scene of "offering a sheep to a tiger". To invite foreign forces of intervention will only trigger off a "restoration of colonial rule".
As to the new restrictions on freedom of procession and of assembly which are proposed for the Public Order Ordinance, I would say that they are totally unnecessary. The Chief Executive always stresses that freedom has to be balanced against order. I think that no one would object to his argument. But, the question is: Has the balance been rocked under the existing Public Order Ordinance? When the Secretary for Justice, Miss Elsie LEUNG, replied to me on this question during the briefing session for Provisional Legislative Council Members, she indicated clearly that the balance had not been rocked. And she explained that it was necessary for the SAR Government to take the lead.
After a tight-rope dancer has performed the art in his own way for two years without any danger of falling down, we will put him in great risks if we instruct him to do something which may make him tilt to one side.
Scenes of arson, object-throwing, skirmishes and street-sleeping protests on the TV screen may have made some people worry that social order is about to collapse. But I have to stress that these are only the actions of a handful of "rebels", and that the processions and demonstrations staged by most people are peaceful and orderly. Is it a wise move to impose restrictions on the peace-loving majority just because of the misbehaviour of a handful of people?
It is all the more worth noting that in the community of Hong Kong, apart from law enforcers and demonstrators, we also need to consider the powerful watch-dog role of public opinions. Now that the public have started to grow tired of the behaviour of the "rebels", the Chief Executive's Office will have to think very seriously whether it is absolutely necessary to increase the powers of the law enforcers at this time. To establish its leadership authority, a government should not rely only on law-making because public support is even more necessary. Construction for the future does not necessarily involve undoing the past.
The resolution of the National People's Congress does not indicate that the existing Public Order Ordinance is in breach of the Basic Law. It only requires the SAR Government to formulate laws according to the prevailing views of the people. I suggest that, having regard to the principle of "a high degree of autonomy" and realistic circumstances, the Provisional Legislative Council should retain the existing time-tested Public Order Ordinance.
Regarding the motion and the amendments, I wish to point out that the Honourable CHAN Choi-hi's amendment is unnecessary. When the SAR comes into being, it needs to draw up its own laws. Should there be any imperfections, the laws can be amended later. There is no need to draw up "provisional" laws, as opposed to "permanent" laws, and there is also no need for Hong Kong to adopt mainland practices. I basically agree to the direction of the Honourable Bruce LIU's motion. But since Hong Kong is about to enter a new era in history, we simply should not use the colonial era as a yardstick of comparison all the time. I believe that no one would object to the Honourable Mrs Elsie TU' amendment. But it is a pity that it does not fully reflect all the principles put forth in the Consultation Document.
Madam President, the consultation exercise conducted by the Chief Executive's Office on the Consultation Document on Civil Liberties and Social Order has received enthusiastic responses from the public. Their viewpoints do vary, but this is not a bad thing. Quite the contrary, as Hong Kong is about to enter a new era in history, the debates on these two Ordinances do give us an opportunity of showing exactly how we will go about implementing the concept of "one country, two systems".
These are my remarks. Thank you, Madam President.
PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY (in Cantonese): Mr James TIEN.
MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy, when the Honourable Bruce LIU moved his motion, he said that many people did not support the conduct of this motion debate today. I think he was wrong.
During the House Committee meeting last week, we proposed that since we had many important matters to deal with before 1 July and our workload in the Legislative Council of Hong Kong LEGCO and the Provisional Legislative Council was very heavy, it would be advisable for us to postpone discussions on all motions which did not need to be carried urgently before 1 July. So, for the motion moved by another member of the Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood, the Honourable Frederick FUNG, on increasing the Comprehensive Social Security Allowance by $300, we felt that it could be postponed for the time being. However, we find it necessary to debate the Consultation Document on Civil Liberties and Social Order Consultation Document today. Mr Deputy, we are more than ready to participate in this debate today.
The Honourable Mrs Selina CHOW of the Liberal Party has already explained why we find it necessary to support the proposals in the Consultation Document. But still, I would like to make two additional points. In order to implement the principle of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong with a high degree of autonomy" as stated in the Basic Law, we maintain that the Hong Kong people should deal with their own affairs. As a result, we have great reservations about having any relationship with foreign political parties and whether we should accept financial aids from foreign political parties or foreign bodies. Hong Kong is such a tiny place and many of our concerns are the same. We do not need the participation or financial support of aliens. For instance, I do not think there is any need for the Democratic Party of the United States, the Conservative Party of Britain, the Communist Party of China or the Kuomintang of Taiwan or any party of any country to give any financial support to any of our political parties or give opinions to our election platforms.
As the treasurer of the Liberal Party, I can say that the expenses of political parties of Hong Kong are in fact not very great, and this is especially the case with election expenses. Why? This is because our existing laws set a limit on the amounts of money that we can spend. Why do we need such a law prohibiting foreign political donations? This is because in the United States, there is no restriction on how much one can spend on running in elections. Not long ago, Mr Ross PEROT spent hundreds of millions of US Dollars on running in the election because he was very rich and there was no limit on how much money he could spend. But in Hong Kong, those who ran in the direct elections in 1995 were only allowed to spend $200,000 each, and for functional constituency elections, one could only spend $50,000. A political party needs only several million dollars for an election campaign and I truly believe that given the local people's enthusiasm for participation, there is no problem for a local political party to raise a few million dollars as expenses. Therefore, political parties of Hong Kong do not need the financial support of foreign political parties. Nor do they need industrial and commercial bodies abroad to help them get on the political stage. Then, who should be allowed to make financial contributions to political parties of Hong Kong? We suggest that the definition of "permanent residents of Hong Kong" should be applied. This definition is very familiar to everyone in Hong Kong. By this definition, all foreigners having lived in Hong Kong for seven years or more are permanent citizens and can thus participate. The adoption of this definition also allows permanent residents of Hong Kong living abroad to participate and contribute financially. Therefore, concerning the democrats' question on whether or not the Chinese people living in the Chinatowns of the United States or Canada can participate, I suggest the answer is "yes".
Mr Deputy, I also agree with some Members that "political organizations" should be defined as bodies which participate in political activities and elections to the three tiers of government. But, the proposed definition of "participation in political activities" is indeed too narrow. We agree that bodies which participate in political activities or comment on public affairs should all be subject to the above restrictions imposed on political parties in respect of contributions and participation. We gravely worry that with so many so-called concern groups in Hong Kong which comment on virtually all public affairs in Hong Kong, they are actually no different from political parties and we do not think that these groups should be exempted from the restrictions. In her amendment, Mrs Selina CHOW has added a more important point which aims to allay the community's anxiety as far as possible. Why do we feel that this point should be added in? The most important reason is that as Members of the legislature, we feel that the laws which we draw up should be the most effective and able to meet our political goals. Very often, we would simply put aside some issues which we think do not require any legislative work at all.
As regards the Public Order Ordinance, we totally support the proposal in the Consultation Document that there should be a seven-day notice. The point is that seven days after a notification is served, if the police can list out the reasons for their objection and have them clearly stated, they can of course give a Notice of Objection to the applicant or the one who has lodged the notice. We do support this idea. However, we do not see any need to issue a Notice of No Objection. If someone notifies the police of his intention to hold a procession or demonstration, and if the police object, they can simply issue a Notice of Objection, and the matter is settled. What is the point of issuing a "Notice of No Objection"? We feel that this is redundant. Regarding the reasons for the issue of a Notice of No Objection, a particularly controversial one is the definition of "national security". In the past, the Attorney General referred to the provisions of some international covenants in the Legislative Council. Now the Secretary for Justice also refers to the provisions of other international covenants. To avoid confusion, we think that "national security" as mentioned in the international covenants should be interpreted in the light of common law. We believe that this is more acceptable to the people of Hong Kong.
Mr Deputy, we do not agree to the phrase "should not be tightened" in the third paragraph of Mr Bruce LIU's original motion. The most important reason is that in order to have an open and fair consultation, we should not be influenced by any preconception, and we should not say that restrictions "should not be" or "should be tightened" before beginning the consultation exercise. We think that we should listen to the views of Provisional Legislative Council Members and the public and then do what should be done in the legislative process. In other words, as pointed out in the following phrase "restriction ...... should not ...... be unreasonable" in Mr Bruce LIU's motion, we should go ahead with what is reasonable and refrain from doing what is not. In view of the above reasons, Mr Deputy, and with these remarks, I support Mrs Selina CHOW's amendment and also the Honourable Mrs Elsie TU's amendment.
PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Chun-ying.
MR LEUNG CHUN-YING (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy, I will speak on the motion and the three amendments, and on the speeches delivered by the movers of the motion and the amendments.
First of all, the Honourable Bruce LIU said that since the Chief Executive himself had made a donation to the former ruling party of Britain, his proposal to prohibit local political organizations or bodies from receiving foreign financial contributions could not possibly fulfil the principle implied in the "carpenter" analogy.
I think that before making such a comment, Mr Bruce LIU must clarify one point. Hong Kong is now a British colony. Given this, how can its present connections with the British ruling party be equated with its relationship with foreign countries when it becomes a Special Administrative Region under the People's Republic of China (PRC) in the future? As a British colony, Hong Kong is subordinated to Britain in all such aspects of national defence, foreign affairs, judicial matters, law-making and administration. Does Mr Bruce LIU think that the same relationship of subordination should still exist between the SAR and foreign countries? When considering the relationship between the SAR and foreign countries over the issue of political donations, it is altogether misleading to equate this relationship with the present connections which exist between Hong Kong as a colony and Britain. Mr Bruce LIU should also know that the Labour government of Britain has proposed to legislate on the prohibition of foreign political donations. I am sure that when defining "foreign countries" in the relevant law, Britain will not include Hong Kong as a British colony but will certainly include Hong Kong as a SAR under the PRC. So, logically speaking, if Mr LIU or his party wants to donate money to the ruling party of China, the donation concerned will be completely legal according to the proposal in the Consultation Document. Logically speaking, and let me quote the adjectives used by Mr Bruce LIU in his speech, donating money to the ruling party of China will be sensible, reasonable and legal.
Secondly, when he spoke on his own motion, Mr Bruce LIU failed to provide any evidence which can show that the restrictions on association, assembly and procession which the British Hong Kong colonial regime is capable of imposing under all those laws and by-laws are in any way more lenient than those proposed in the Consultation Document. Therefore, I oppose Mr Bruce LIU's motion.
The Honourable CHAN Choi-hi's amendment recommends the adoption of provisional legislation to replace the proposed ordinances. I think that all laws can be amended as we gain more experience through practice and as society develops. Hence, I object to Mr CHAN Choi-hi's amendment on the adoption of provisional legislation.
Lastly, there is a discrepancy between a key point in the Honourable Mrs Selina CHOW's amendment and her speech. In her amendment, there is a phrase that reads, "the anxiety of the people of Hong Kong ...... should be allayed as far as possible". But, in her explanation, Mrs CHOW said that only some of the people have such anxiety. Therefore, I consider that Mrs Selina CHOW's explanation is more precise than her amendment. So, I object to her amendment.
Mr Deputy, these are my remarks.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? Mr CHENG Yiu-tong.
MR CHENG YIU-TONG (in Cantonese): Madam President, today I am not going to speak on political donations. Instead, I will speak on how to strike a balance between civil liberties and protection of human rights on the one hand, and the maintenance of social order and public interests on the other. The Honourable CHAN Wing-chan has already explained in detail the stance and viewpoints of the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions in this regard. We maintain that it is both necessary and pressing to amend the Public Order Ordinance and Societies Ordinance. This is because on 1 July 1997, these two Ordinances must be in existence in Hong Kong. Of course, some people may ask, "Since everything is fine now, why should we make any amendments to them?" But I do not buy this view. As we all know, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress has already announced that the existing Public Order Ordinance and Societies Ordinance will not be adopted as laws of the future Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. As a result, on 1 July 1997, there will be a legal vacuum in this regard. We must re-enact these two Ordinances in order to have laws to for compliance. Otherwise, Hong Kong will experience a legal vacuum or even a state of lawlessness.
On the other hand, I think that the intent of all legislation should be one of precaution. Without such an intent, and if we do not make laws until the situation is out of control, we will be putting ourselves in a dangerous position. I, therefore, think that these amendments are necessary. That said, I emphasize that individual rights and freedoms have to be respected, and for this very reason, I am strongly against those people who seek to exercise their so-called individual rights and freedoms at the expense of other's rights and freedoms.
The discussion on the Consultation Paper reminds me of an incident in 1990. On the day in question, after attending a National Day reception hosted by the Xinhua News Agency, the Honourable CHENG Kai-nam and I were railed and insulted on our way out by a group of demonstrators. We were then coming out from the Maxim Restaurant of the Maxim Group, where the present World Trade Centre is situated, and we passed the Daimaru and the Windsor Mansion. However, the group of people followed us all the way and kept on hurling highly offensive abuses at us. I did not show any response, thinking that they would stop when they got tired. But, they just would not. In the end, we had no other alternatives but to enter a lift of the Windsor Mansion in order to get our car at the car park. The lift could only accommodate eight people. However, there were more than 10 people in the lift at that time, and these people were the same demonstrators who had been following us. They kept on railing at us with some abusive and offensive words for more than 10 minutes. We could not leave the lift as they were blocking the lift doors, which then could not close. We were unable to get out. To put it in a more colloquial way, we were simply "stuck" there. I was very angry at that time. But I just held my breath. There were two reasons for holding my breath. First, conflicts would be inevitable if I quarrelled with them, and anyway, I thought that they were very ignorant. The second reason for holding my breath is that more than 10 people were crowded in a lift with a capacity of only eight and, these people kept on flinging abuses to us. Their bad breath was indeed unbearable. Madam President, these are my remarks.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? If not, since Mrs Elsie TU has not had any opportunity to speak on the amendments to be moved by other Members, I would allow Mrs TU to speak if she wishes to. Mrs TU.
MRS ELSIE TU: Thank you, Madam President. I would like to explain that the copies of my speech which were distributed to Members and the press were printed before I decided to delete the last sentence because I do not share Mrs CHOW's view; so I do not support her further amendment. However, I would prefer that one to Mr CHAN's and also to Mr LIU's original motion. I think Mrs CHOW's amendment is unnecessary because in the introductory paragraph to Mr LIU's motion, he calls upon the Chief Executive's Office to seriously consider and accord due respect to the views of the public, and I assume by that the Chief Executive will listen to any public expressions of anxiety, and he will make efforts to allay them. The fact is that some people have been doing their best to drum up fear by slogan-shouting that we are now accustomed to hearing at every demonstration, and usually by the same few people. Great efforts at drumming up fear have also been made, rather unsuccessfully, by two current Legislative Council Members while visiting the United States and Canada. Their purposes of course are to make the world believe that we are all living in fear of having our human rights removed and the rule of law abolished. Only those who are ignorant of the facts would believe these absurd claims.
The vast majority of people in Hong Kong are going about their daily business totally unconcerned about changes in the law concerning demonstrations, in which they have very little interest anyhow.
Those who spend most of their time organizing demonstrations will still be free to do so. All that they are required to do is to give due notice to the police and wait a few days to see whether the police are satisfied that public security is not at risk.
The fact is that most people I have talked to are not afraid of the changes in this document. What they are afraid of are some disorderly demonstrations, when participants take the law into their own hands, as we just heard, enter building, and cause fear and inconvenience to other people.
I therefore think that Mrs CHOW's amendment is unnecessary. As to Mr CHAN's amendment to Mr LIU's motion, I have to confess that I am at a loss to know exactly what he has in mind. This Provisional Legislative Council is itself an interim measure to pass bills to fill in the legal vacuum until the Basic Law has been put on the right track, after it has been tampered with since 1992 by self-styled democrats led by the Governor. Legislative Council Members elected in 1998 and afterwards may pass amendments to the Societies Ordinance or the Public Order Ordinance if they are necessary. I mentioned that possibility in my earlier speech, though personally I do not anticipate that there will be such necessity. Any such amendments would, of course, have to be in accordance with the method of amending bills as set out in Annex II of the Basic Law.
Mr CHAN appears to set a time limit for such amendments, namely, the term of office of the first Legislative Council. I cannot see how, at this time, we can bind the hands of the Chief Executive as to what legislation he should introduce into the first Legislative Council. I therefore regret that I cannot support Mr CHAN’s amendment to Mr LIU's motion.
Thank you, Madam President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now invite Mr Bruce LIU to speak on the amendments to his motion. As recommended by the House Committee, the time limit is five minutes. Mr LIU.
MR BRUCE LIU (in Cantonese): Madam President, I would first of all speak on the amendment moved by the Honourable CHAN Choi-hi. I agree to his observations, but not the solution he proposes. He is right in his observations that the Chief Executive's Office is facing a shortage of manpower, and we are hard-pressed by time during the transition period. He is also right in saying that we must thus be very cautious when conducting legislative work. However, his proposal to adopt provisional legislation as a solution is not supported by us, though I appreciate his rationale. Actually, his proposal could be interpreted in two ways. The first interpretation is that the Provisional Legislative Council should pass the laws first, and let the first Legislative Council formally confirm them later. If this is Mr CHAN's intention, I must ask, "Is his proposal very much the result of the fact that the Provisional Legislative Council has not yet discussed whether the Reunification Bill or other means should be adopted to confirm laws in the future?" But, this issue is actually irrelevant to our discussion today. The second interpretation is that we should learn from the Mainland, and draw up temporary laws, that is, provisional legislation. However, both this kind of legislation and the Ordinances enacted in Hong Kong according to the Basic Law will become the laws of Hong Kong. So, provisional legislation is not necessary. The laws passed by this Council will become the laws of Hong Kong after confirmation, disregarding whether or not they are provisional. This distinction is actually not appropriate. According to the Basic Law, the laws practised on the Mainland will not be implemented in Hong Kong; and, if any laws are found to be unsatisfactory, the legislature of the time can always introduce amendments. This distinction is thus inappropriate. Under these two circumstances, the Hong Kong Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood is against his amendment.
In her amendment, the Honourable Mrs Selina CHOW has inserted a sentence which reads: "The anxiety of the people of Hong Kong about their existing freedom being undermined by the amendments should be allayed as far as possible." This sentence can be interpreted in two ways. First, will the freedom enjoyed by the people of Hong Kong be tightened? Or, undermined? These questions lead us to the first interpretation, and that is that existing freedom may really be reduced and tightened. So, if the scenario she describes really occurs, how can we allay the people's anxiety? By means of publicity efforts? I think it is difficult to allay such anxiety by whatever form of publicity. The second possible interpretation is that the existing freedom enjoyed by the people of Hong Kong will not be undermined in any way, and some people are simply over-worried. If that is so, I will call upon Mrs Selina CHOW to support my amendment instead of tightening the freedom enjoyed by the Hong Kong people.
In regard to the Honourable Mrs Elsie TU's amendment, I have to thank her for adding "as applied to Hong Kong" after "the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights". This is what I left out when drafting the motion. I have to thank her for this amendment. In fact, this is exactly what I mean, as my first principle is about compliance with the Basic Law, and "as applied to Hong Kong" is indeed stated in Article 39 of the Basic Law. In regard to her addition of the third principle to substitute my principle, I find that she is evading a question. This question concerns whether or not the freedom we now enjoy under these two Ordinances represents a right balance. I opine that the balance is already appropriate. Any new restrictions to be imposed at an opportune time in the future, if deemed necessary, will have to be reasonable. In my view, two restrictions proposed in the Document are reasonable. The definition of "national security" is one example. With "one country, two systems", if we can clearly define the restrictions on territorial integrity and sovereignty, a definition of "national security" is required. The second restriction is about foreign interference and influence, which I think is also appropriate. Under these circumstances, we oppose the amendment to be moved by Mrs Elsie TU. Thank you, Madam President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now invite the Secretary for Policy Co-ordination of the Chief Executive's Office to speak. Secretary for Policy Co-ordination.
SECRETARY FOR POLICY CO-ORDINATION (in Cantonese): Madam President, since its publication on 9 April, the Consultation Document on Civil Liberties and Social Order has become the focal point of discussion among the various strata of the community. Hong Kong is one of the most advanced cities of the world. It is only natural that the general public are concerned about their rights and freedom on one hand, and the maintenance of prosperity and stability on the other. I have to make it clear at the outset that in the Consultation Document, we have already undertaken that we will be committed to the continued protection of human rights, to the upholding of the rule of law and the maintenance of the institutions which underpin the success of Hong Kong over the years.
Honourable Members are all very familiar with the recommendations put forward in the Consultation Document after the extensive media coverage over the past few weeks. Thus, I do not intend to repeat them in the debate today. But I would like to take this opportunity to respond to the allegation of "bogus consultation".
Consultation exercise
Since the Consultation Document has not given us any options, some critics say that this is not a genuine consultation exercise. Some people also express the view that three weeks is simply not enough for discussions on an issue of such importance. As a matter of fact, the original motion and the various amendments to it all urge us to seriously consider and accord due respect to the views of the public. I can assure all of you that this is exactly the goal which this Consultation Document seeks to achieve. Although the Chief Executive's Office does not have too much manpower, within three weeks, the Chief Executive and his colleagues have met more than 70 concern groups representing different strata of society, in addition to holding two briefings.
Members of the public have given enthusiastic responses to the Consultation Document and we will give due consideration to their concern. We will make proper amendments to the original recommendations in order to strike a right balance between civil liberties and social stability, between personal rights and social obligations, and between individual interests and public interests.
Honourable Members have just pointed out some areas in the Consultation Document which have attracted the concern of many members of the public. I would therefore like to explain again the principles underlying this Consultation Document. At the same time, I shall clarify the misunderstandings that some members of the public still harbour. I hope that this can assist Members' future deliberation of the bills to be submitted by us.
Basic Principles of the Consultation Document
Our proposals on amending the Societies Ordinance and Pubic Order Ordinance are based on the following three basic principles:
1. The amendments must be absolutely consistently with the Basic Law and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) as they are applied to Hong Kong;
2. A proper balance must be sought between civil liberties and social order. On the one hand, we have to safeguard the individual rights and freedom of the public, while on the other, we have to ensure that when the public exercise their rights and freedom, they will not affect other people and social stability; and
3. We must prevent foreign political forces from making use of Hong Kong to carry out political activities which are not in the interests of China and Hong Kong.
The original motion moved by the Honourable Bruce LIU and the amendments moved by other Members invariably support these basic principles. In fact, judging from the opinions expressed by the general public during the consultation period, we can say that these basic principles are generally recognized. We all think that these principles are important factors which can contribute to the sustained prosperity and stability of Hong Kong.
Now I would like to talk about some areas which attracted relatively more differing views during the consultation period.
First: the definition of "national security"
In the laws of Hong Kong, "national security" is definitely not a new concept. We have to make sure that Hong Kong will not be affected by foreign political forces and will not become a base for political activities against China. Besides, Hong Kong and the Mainland are dependent on one another. It is thus sensible to reflect our emphasis on national security through legislation.
Some people worry that the SAR Government may interpret "national security" in accordance with the National Security Law of China. In fact, Article 8 of the Basic Law has already given sufficient assurance that the common law will continue to be practised in the SAR. Since the Societies Ordinance and Pubic Order Ordinance are laws of Hong Kong, any interpretation of "national security" should then be dealt with on the basis of Hong Kong laws and their precedents within the principles of the Basic Law. I have to emphasize that any statutory restrictions on the grounds of national security must be consistent with the standards of a democratic society.
Some people also question whether the courts of Hong Kong will have the authority to deal with lawsuits concerning "national security". As a matter of fact, both the Societies Ordinance and the Pubic Order Ordinance have their own appeal mechanism. In case someone is not satisfied with the decision of the Administration, he has the right to apply to the court for a judicial review. And, the Administration should also give sufficient evidence to the court in order to prove that its decision is indeed based on the consideration of "national security".
Second: the definition of "political organizations"
Our intention is that only political parties should be regarded as "political organizations". For professional bodies which participate in the elections of functional constituencies, since their primary objective relates to the development of their own professions rather than participation in elections, they are thus being excluded. Even though some professional bodies may participate in the elections of functional constituencies as well as direct elections, as long as their main objectives are not participation in politics and commenting on public affairs, they still will not be regarded as "political organizations" under our conceived definition. Many different views, some for our proposals, and some against them, have been expressed by quite a number of Members today. After listening to these views, we will give careful consideration to them.
Third: the definition of "foreign connections"
The aim of prohibiting "political organizations" of Hong Kong from establishing connections with foreign countries is to prevent societies in Hong Kong from being controlled by foreign political forces. We believe that political and financial assistance as well as management control will directly influence the policies and operation of a society. When considering restrictions on financial assistance, our underlying spirit is to prohibit financial assistance of a political nature. In regard to our proposed restrictions on personal donations, our original intent is to prevent political organizations from circumventing statutory restrictions by making donations in the name of individuals. The general public have expressed many precious views in this respect, and these views will provide us with very important reference when making our final decision.
Conclusion
Finally, I would like to reiterate that recommendations put forward in the Consultation Document are in compliance with the Basic Law and the ICCPR. Not only this, they are also in line with the public interests of Hong Kong. We believe that these recommendations can help to strike a proper balance between respect for civil liberties and maintenance of social order. We have no intention at all to suppress civil liberties or restrict the establishment of political organizations, nor do we want to deprive the rights or interests of certain societies or political bodies. We will revise our recommendations having regard to the views expressed by the public during the consultation period. I urge Honourable Members to scrutinize the amendment bills on the Societies Ordinance and Pubic Order Ordinance in a positive and pragmatic manner and give support to these two bills. Thank you, Madam President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Before I invite Honourable Members to move their respective amendments to the motion, I would like to make an announcement. This Council has voted on the Holidays (1997 and 1998) Bill a moment ago. Following the distribution of the list of voting results to Honourable Members, two Members pointed out that the records of their votes were missing from the results list. The Honourable Bruce LIU voted for the motion, while Prof NG Ching-fai voted against it. Therefore, the voting record should be nine votes in favour of the motion and 41 votes against it. This does not affect the final outcome of voting and it will be indicated in our official record. Mr Edward HO.
MR EDWARD HO (in Cantonese): Mr President, I refer to the announcement you made just now. I did not know that the record can be corrected and thus I did not point out the mistakes. In fact the record of my vote is incorrect, too. My vote is against the motion, not for it.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): As a matter of fact, we have studied the case. The voting results showed that Mr Bruce LIU and Prof NG Ching-fai had not voted on the motion. I think this is because they did not press the buttons hard enough. We can therefore show their votes again. But when Mr HO voted, he might have touched the wrong button. However, I hope Honourable Members can appreciate that we have already voted on the motion. So, will Mr HO please excuse me, for I do not intend to correct his voting record? Mr LAU Kong-wah.
MR LAU KONG-WAH (in Cantonese): Madam President, I pressed the button hard enough and my stance towards the motion has been correctly recorded. But my Chinese name has been incorrectly written, and I would like to make a correction. My Chinese name is "劉江華" instead of "劉光華". Thank you.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): "江"is formed with the radical "水" and the character "工". We will correct your name immediately. Please excuse us for the mistake. Mrs Selina CHOW.
MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Madam President, you allow the record to be corrected, I would like to point out that the English name of the Honourable Bruce LIU has been misspelt as "Bruce LEE".
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LIU, I suppose you will not oppose our correcting your name. Mrs Selina CHOW, thank you for your correction. Mr CHENG Kai-nam.
MR CHENG KAI-NAM (in Cantonese): I am really sorry, Madam President, but, the English name of another Provisional Legislative Member whom I know seems to have been misspelt, too. The surname of the Honourable James TIEN should be "TIEN".
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): That is right. Mrs Miriam LAU.
MRS MIRIAM LAU (in Cantonese): We all agree that the Honourable James TIEN is very "sweet" (甜 [tian] in Putonghua), but we do not want to change his surname to "TIAN" (甜).
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Are there any other mistakes in regard to the Chinese or English names of Honourable Members? If not, let me assure Members that we will definitely make the necessary corrections. If Honourable Members spot any errors in the future, please ask for corrections at any time. Dr TSO WONG Man-yin.
DR TSO WONG MAN-YIN (in Cantonese): The last name of TSO WONG Man-yin should be spelt "YIN" instead of "YAN".
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? After this episode, we have to get down to business again.
I now invite Mrs Elsie TU to move her amendment to the motion. Mrs Elsie TU.
MRS ELSIE TU: I move that Mr Bruce LIU’s motion be amended as set out under my name on the Agenda.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mrs Elsie TU be made to Mr Bruce LIU's motion. I now invite Mrs Selina CHOW to move her amendment to Mrs Elsie TU's amendment. Mrs Selina CHOW.
MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Madam President, I move that Mrs Elsie TU's amendment be amended as set out under my name on the Revised Agenda.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mrs Selina CHOW be made to Mrs Elsie TU's amendment.
I now put the question to you and that is "To delete "and" at the end of subparagraph 2; to delete the full-stop at the end of subparagraph 3 and substitute "; and 4. the anxiety of the people of Hong Kong about their existing freedom being undermined by the amendments should be allayed as far as possible."" Will those in favour of the amendment please say "aye"?
(Members responded)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please say "no".
(Members responded)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the "noes" have it. Mrs Selina CHOW.
MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): I wish to claim a division.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Upon the request of Mrs Selina CHOW, I announce that this Council will now proceed to a division. The division bell will ring for three minutes. Mr CHAN Kam-lam.
MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): Madam President, I move the three-minute rule set out in the Rules of Procedure be suspended and replaced by a one-minute division bell. Thank you.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): According to Rule 49(3) of the Rules of Procedure, there shall be a division of three minutes in the first instance, and if a further division is required, Members can move to have a one-minute division. Although I very much support the suggestion of Mr CHAN, we have no alternatives. I have to follow the Rules of Procedure. Therefore, this division has to last for three minutes. Will Members please be patient for three minutes?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The question which has been put to the vote is that: That the amendment moved by Mrs Selina CHOW be made to Mrs Elsie TU's amendment. The division will now commence. I shall explain once again how we should select our desired buttons. Those in favour should press the green button, those against should press the red button and those abstain should press the white button. After I announce the division, the red light over the voting device will flash and Honourable Members have to make their final decision within 30 seconds after which the device will stop and Members can no longer alter the decisions they have made.
(The division bell had rung for three minutes)
Mr James TIEN, Mr Edward HO, Mr Eric LI, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr LAU Kong-wah, Mr LAU Wong-fat and Mrs Miriam LAU voted for the amendment.
Mr WONG Siu-yee, Mr David CHU, Dr Raymond HO, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mrs Elsie TU, Mrs Peggy LAM, Mr Henry WU, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr YUEN Mo, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Dr TSO WONG Man-yin, Mr LEUNG Chun-ying, Mrs Sophie LEUNG, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Mr CHAN Choi-hi, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHENG Kai-nam, Mr Frederick FUNG, Dr Philip WONG, Dr Charles YEUNG, Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Dr TANG Siu-tong, Mr Timothy FOK, Mr KAN Fook-yee, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen, Mr LO Suk-ching, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok and Mr TAM Yiu-chung voted against the amendment.
Mr HO Sai-chu, Mr HUI Yin-fat and Mr Kennedy WONG abstained.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now announce that there are 10 votes in favour of the amendment, 38 votes against it and three abstentions. Eight Members have not voted. I declare that Mrs Selina CHOW's amendment to Mrs Elsie TU's amendment is negatived.
Dr LEONG Che-hung.
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, I wish to seek your leave to move a motion without notice that the ringing time of the division bell be shortened when this Council proceeds to further divisions regarding this motion under debate.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr LEONG, you have my leave.
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG (in Cantonese): Thank you, Madam President. I move that when any Member claims a division regarding this motion, after the division bell has rung for one minute, the President can order this Council to proceed immediately to the division concerned. I also hope that Members can press their desired buttons hard enough and that they would not press the wrong buttons.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That when any Member claims a division under this motion, after the division bell has rung for one minute, the President can order this Council to proceed immediately to the division concerned. Does any Member wish to speak?
I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please say "aye"?
(Members responded)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please say "no".
(Members responded)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the "ayes" have it. I declare that the motion is carried. I then put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mrs Elsie TU as set out on the Revised Agenda be approved. Will those in favour please say "aye"?
(Members responded)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please say "no".
(Members responded)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the "ayes" have it. Mr Frederick FUNG.
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, I wish to claim a division.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Since Mr Frederick FUNG has claimed a division, I announce that this Council will now proceed to a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
(The division bell had rung for one minute)
Mr WONG Siu-yee, Mr James TIEN, Mr David CHU, Mr HO Sai-chu, Mr Edward HO, Dr Raymond HO, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Eric LI, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mrs Elsie TU, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mrs Peggy LAM, Mr Henry WU, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr YUEN Mo, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Dr TSO WONG Man-yin, Mr LEUNG Chun-ying, Mrs Sophie LEUNG, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHENG Kai-nam, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Kennedy WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Dr Charles YEUNG, Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr LAU Kong-wah, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Dr TANG Siu-tong, Mr Timothy FOK, Mr KAN Fook-yee, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen, Mr LO Suk-ching and Mr TAM Yiu-chung voted for the amendment.
Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Mr CHAN Choi-hi, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Bruce LIU and Dr LAW Cheung-kwok voted against the amendment.
Mr HUI Yin-fat abstained.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now announce the result of the division: there are 44 votes in favour of the amendment, six votes against it, and one abstention. Eight Members have not voted. I declare that the amendment moved by Mrs Elsie TU is carried. Mr CHAN Choi-hi, since Mrs Elsie TU's amendment has been carried, do you wish to revise the wording of your original amendment?
MR CHAN CHOI-HI (in Cantonese): Madam President, with your permission, I would like to revise the wording of my amendment as tabled for Members' reference now.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You have my permission to revise the wording of the your amendment. In accordance with the recommendation of the House Committee, I shall allow you to speak on the revise amendment.
MR CHAN CHOI-HI (in Cantonese): Thank you, Madam President. The main point is that quite a number of Members think that I want to introduce Chinese legal concepts to Hong Kong. This is in fact not my original intention. Please do not misunderstand me. The most important point is that given the current circumstances, latitude should be applied to work out a way of filling the existing legal vacuum. I reckon that provisional legislation can achieve this goal. Therefore, I have deleted a few words, that is, "eliminating their anxiety" from my amendment. Thank you.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WONG.
MR ANDREW WONG (in Cantonese): Point of order. Only explanation on the wording should be allowed at this stage, because what is involved is just a change in wording after the previous amendment has been carried. A Member should not speak for the purpose of gaining support from other Members.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think Mr WONG is right. Mr CHAN, I suppose you will accept this view, right? Now that Mr CHAN has already revised the wording of his amendment, I then put the question to you and that is: That Mr Bruce LIU's motion as amended by Mrs Elsie TU be further amended by Mr CHAN's amendment. I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please say "aye"?
(Members responded)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please say "no".
(Members responded)
MR CHAN CHOI-HI (in Cantonese): Madam President, I wish to claim a division.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Yes, Mr CHAN. Upon Mr CHAN's request, I announce that this Council will now proceed to a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
(The division bell had rung for one minute)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I announce that the division will now commence. We know that the electronic voting devices of two Members do not function. I have to ask these two Members to tell me their votes later. Mr Bruce LIU, do you have anything to say, or is your voting device out of order?
MR BRUCE LIU (in Cantonese): My voting device may have some problems.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The two Members whom I referred to just now are probably Prof NG Ching-fai and you.
Mr CHAN Choi-hi voted for the amendment.
Mr WONG Siu-yee, Mr James TIEN, Mr David CHU, Mr HO Sai-chu, Mr Edward HO, Dr Raymond HO, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Eric LI, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mrs Elsie TU, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mrs Peggy LAM, Mr Henry WU, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr YUEN Mo, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Dr TSO WONG Man-yin, Mr LEUNG Chun-ying, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mrs Sophie LEUNG, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Mr HUI Yin-fat, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHENG Kai-nam, Mr Frederick FUNG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Kennedy WONG, Dr Charles YEUNG, Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr LAU Kong-wah, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Dr TANG Siu-tong, Mr Timothy FOK, Mr KAN Fook-yee, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen, Mr LO Suk-ching, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok and Mr TAM Yiu-chung voted against the amendment.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The results of the division are now available. There are one vote in favour of the amendment, 48 votes against it and no abstention. Ten Members have not voted. Next, I have to ask those two Members who have not voted to declare their votes. Mr Bruce LIU.
MR BRUCE LIU (in Cantonese): Madam President, I vote against the amendment.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Yes, a vote against it. Prof NG Ching-fai. The question is on Mr CHAN Choi-hi's amendment.
MR NG CHING-FAI (in Cantonese): I vote against it.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Both of you vote against it. That means there are all together 50 votes against the amendment; 48 votes on the screen plus two equals 50. I declare that the amendment is negatived.
MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG (in Cantonese): I am sorry, Madam President, the number you announced just now is not correct. If there are 51 votes, and 10 Members did not vote, the total will be as large as 61.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): That will include the absentee.
MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG (in Cantonese): You announced a moment ago that 10 Members did not vote. If you yourself are also counted, the number will be 62 in total. This sum is not correct.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You are correct. But why is it so? Oh! It is getting more entertaining. I think I have to blame myself for not being familiar with the rules. Mr CHIM Pui-chung is right. There are one vote in favour of the amendment, 50 votes against it, and no abstention. Eight Members have not voted. Is that all correct? I have already announced that the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Choi-hi is negatived. Therefore, I now invite Mr Bruce LIU to reply. You have up to four minutes and 39 seconds out of your original 15 minutes. Mr Bruce LIU, you may now reply.
MR BRUCE LIU (in Cantonese): Madam President, first of all I have to thank the 20 Members who have spoken on my motion today. The debate today has proved that we are creating a new parliamentary culture for the Provisional Legislative Council, one feature of which is to reflect the opinions of the Hong Kong people and to do our best to rationally discuss the issues concerned. Judging from the speeches of Honourable Members, I can say that they share one common viewpoint. They all find the definitions of some new restrictions on freedom of speech, of assembly and of association as proposed in the Consultation Document not very clear. On the other hand, Honourable Members agree in principle to two of the proposed restrictions. The first one is "national security". Under the major principle of "one country, two systems", we are in support of this restriction. However, "national security" should be clearly defined so as to allay the anxiety of the public. The second one is "intervention in Hong Kong by foreign political forces". This involves issues like donations made by foreign political organizations to some political parties of Hong Kong. Therefore, it also involves how to define "political organizations" and what "intervention" and "control" actually refer to. I hope that this will be dealt with in the bill.
I would also like to respond to the views of several Members. The first one is the Honourable CHENG Kai-nam. He asked whether the stance of the Hong Kong Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood (ADPL) towards the whole Consultation Document is "black" or "white". In fact, this is similar to asking whether the ADPL is a "black cat" or a "white cat". I can only answer that the ADPL is a "good cat". For the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region under the principle of "one country, two systems", we are one of the forces working together with the others.
Secondly, having listened to the entire debate, I find some Members who share the same thinking as mine, especially the Honourable HUI Yin-fat. Since the existing Societies Ordinance can promote the establishment of societies, he is against restoring the pold registration system. It is stated in the Consultation Document that all the existing societies formed according to the notification system will still be regarded as registered societies. This means that the system in operation at present is not all that unacceptable. However, a registration system will be re-introduced in the future, and the purpose is that the operation of a society can be suspended in case its operation runs against national security or contravenes the restrictions concerned. But this purpose can also be served under the notification system because when the operation of a society is found to be in breach of the new restrictions, for example, "national security", its operation can still be suspended.
On the other hand, I also support the viewpoint of the Honourable LAU Kong-wah that we should conduct rational discussions on the social problems as we understand them. But, I would also like to ask the Chief Executive, Mr TUNG, to listen to the opinions of the general public from a rational point of view as far as possible. We are not going to make a decision simply by listening to the views of two groups of people, black on the one side and white on the other. Instead, we should judge which views are convincing and in line with the sensibilities of the Hong Kong people, and make a choice accordingly. I have also listened to Members' criticisms about me with such an attitude. I will accept their views if they are convincing. Finally, I have to thank Honourable Members for their speeches. Thank you.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LIU, the voting device is now functioning normally without any defects. Therefore your vote against the amendment is recorded. In regard to the voting device of Prof NG Ching-fai, it is also in normal condition. The problem is that he pressed the wrong button. Thus, I have to announce the voting results again: there are one vote in favour of the amendment, 49 votes against it, and no abstention. Nine Members have not voted. It is all very clear. I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr Bruce LIU as amended by Mrs Elsie TU be approved. Will those in favour please say "aye"?
(Members responded)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please say "no".
(Members responded)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the "ayes" have it. I declare that the amended motion is carried.
NEXT MEETING
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, I now adjourn the Council until 9:30 am on Saturday, 17 May 1997.
Adjourned accordingly at 1 minute to one o'clock.
Annex
Holidays (1997 and 1988) Bill
Committee Stage
Amendments to be moved by the Secretary for Justice
Clause Amendment Proposed
|
Schedule 1 |
In the first and second items, by deleting "紀念" where it appears twice. |
| |
|
|
Schedule 2 |
In the first and second items, by deleting "紀念" where it appears twice. |
| |
|
|
Schedule 3 |
(a) |
In the item for "The day following Good Friday", by adding "日" after "4月11". |
| |
|
|
| |
(b) |
In the item for "The day following Mid Autumn Festival", by deleting "Monday 5" and substituting "Tuesday 6". |
