OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Saturday, 14 June 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.

THE HONOURABLE LEE KAI-MING

THE HONOURABLE ALLEN LEE, J.P.

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 RONALD ARCULLI, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE YUEN MO

THE HONOURABLE MA FUNG-KWOK

THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG HON-CHUNG

DR THE HONOURABLE MRS 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-FAN, 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 TSANG YOK-SING

THE HONOURABLE CHENG KAI-NAM

THE HONOURABLE FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE

DR THE HONOURABLE PHILIP WONG YU-HONG

THE HONOURABLE KENNEDY WONG YING-HO

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

THE HONOURABLE MARIA TAM WAI-CHU, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE TAM YIU-CHUNG, J.P.

MEMBERS ABSENT:

DR THE HONOURABLE DAVID LI KWOK-PO, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WONG WANG-FAT, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE HOWARD YOUNG, J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE LAW CHEUNG-KWOK

CLERK IN ATTENDANCE:

MS PAULINE NG MAN-WAH

CLERK TO THE PROVISIONAL LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

ADDRESSES

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Good morning, Members. We will start the Meeting with three addresses.

In accordance with Rule 21(5) of the Rules of Procedure, no debate may arise on the addresses, but I may in my discretion allow short questions to be put for the purpose of elucidating matters raised in the addresses.

First of all, Mr HO Sai-chu will address this Council on the report of the Bills Committee on the National Flag and National Emblem Bill and the Regional Flag and Regional Emblem Bill. Mr HO Sai-chu.

Report of the Bills Committee on the National Flag and National Emblem Bill and the Regional Flag and Regional Emblem Bill

MR HO SAI-CHU (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Bills Committee has submitted the report on the National Flag and National Emblem Bill and the Regional Flag and Regional Emblem Bill to the Provisional Legislative Council by way of PLC Paper No. 392/96-97. As the Chairman of the Bills Committee, I do not intend to repeat the content of the report here. I just want to take this opportunity to point out that the Bills Committee and the Chief Executive's Office have repeatedly discussed whether or not different levels of penalties should be set out in the bills for the offences of desecrating the national flag/national emblem and of desecrating the regional flag/regional emblem. After taking the Bills Committee's opinions into consideration, the Chief Executive's Office agreed to move amendments at the Committee stage to provide for separate penalties of lower levels for the summary offence of desecrating the regional flag/regional emblem.

The Chief Executive's Office will move other amendments at the Committee stage and these amendments have already been accepted by the Bills Committee.

I hope that Honourable colleagues will accept the Bills Committee's report. Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The second address. Miss Maria TAM will address this Council on the report of the Bills Committee on the Societies (Amendment) Bill 1997 and the Public Order (Amendment) Bill 1997. Miss Maria TAM.

Report of the Bills Committee on the Societies (Amendment) Bill 1997 and the Public Order (Amendment) Bill 1997

MISS MARIA TAM (in Cantonese): Madam President, PLC Paper No. 396/96-97 is the report of the Bills Committee on the Societies (Amendment) Bill 1997 and the Public Order (Amendment) Bill 1997. Since the report has already set out the important results of the Bills Committee's deliberations, I am only going to make a supplementary report here.

The Bills Committee scrutinized these two bills on the basis of policy considerations, legal perspectives, and practical operation. On the whole, most members support the policy changes and ways of implementation proposed in these two bills. However, regarding the Societies (Amendment) Bill 1997, some individual members are of the view that the proposed societies registration system should incorporate a mechanism whereby eligible societies could be automatically exempted from registration under the future ordinance. As for the Public Order (Amendment) Bill 1997, some individual members think that the provision on issuing Notice of No Objection by the Commissioner of Police should be deleted, and they will move amendments to this effect at the Committee stage. But, the mainstream opinion is in support of the Government's amendments.

With regard to the definitions and interpretation of terms such as "national security" and "foreign political organizations" used in these two bills, after careful consideration, most members agreed to endorse such definitions and interpretation. But, some individual members still intend to move amendments at the Committee stage.

Since the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China has resolved, pursuant to Article 160 of the Basic Law, that the major amendments made to the Societies Ordinance and the Public Order Ordinance in 1992 and 1995 respectively shall not be adopted as the laws of the Hong Kong Special Adminsitrative Region, the Bills Committee thinks that it is essential to ensure that the Societies Ordinance and the Public Order Ordinance as amended by these two amendment bills shall remain in force after 1 July 1997, and it has proposed to the Chief Executive's Office that amendments be made to the relevant provisions of the Ordinances. In response, the Chief Executive's Office has agreed to move the necessary amendments together with other technical amendments.

I hope that Honourable colleagues will accept the report of the Bills Committee. Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The third address. Mrs Miriam LAU will address this Council on the report of the Committee on Members' Interests. Mrs Miriam LAU.

Report of the Committee on Members' Interests

MRS MIRIAM LAU (in Cantonese): Madam President, on behalf of the Committee on Members' Interests (CMI), I now table its report before the Council. The report issued under PLC No. 386/96-97 has been circularized to Members for their perusal on 11 June.

Madam President, the purpose of the report is to outline the deliberations of the CMI since its establishment on 12 May 1997, and it also presents to Members the following documents:

The first document is at Appendix III of the report, namely, the "Guidelines on Registration of Interests" endorsed by the CMI;

The second document is at Appendix IV of the report, namely, the revised Registration Form endorsed by the CMI and approved by the President.

The third document is at Appendix V of the report, namely, the "Advisory Guidelines on Matters of Ethics in relation to the Conduct of Members of the Provisional Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Adminstrative Region in their capacity as such" endorsed by the CMI.

The CMI hopes that these three documents will, to a certain extent, facilitate Members' reporting of their registrable interests. However, when drafting the documents, the CMI found that a small number of items would have to be reviewed at a later time, and a list of these items is attached at Appendix VI. These items will be reviewed by the CMI in due course.

Madam President, I hereby present the report. Thank you.

BILLS

First Reading of Bill

OATHS AND DECLARATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1997

CLERK (in Cantonese): Oaths and Declarations (Amendment) Bill 1997.

Bill read the first time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Rule 53(3) of the Rules of Procedure.

　

　

Second Reading of Bills

OATHS AND DECLARATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1997

NATIONAL FLAG AND NATIONAL EMBLEM BILL

REGIONAL FLAG AND REGIONAL EMBLEM BILL

SOCIETIES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1997

PUBLIC ORDER (AMENDMENT) BILL 1997

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Second Reading of Bills. Secretary for Policy Co-ordination.

SECRETARY FOR POLICY CO-ORDINATION (in Cantonese): Madam President, I move that the Oaths and Declarations (Amendment) Bill 1997 be read a Second time.

The current Oaths and Declarations Ordinance (Cap. 11) sets out the texts of inauguration oaths for Executive Council Members, Legislative Council Members, judicial officers and other specified public officers. The texts of such oaths require the persons concerned to take an Oath of Allegiance to the Queen of the United Kingdom. These provisions will become inappropriate to the Special Administrative Region (SAR), and have to be repealed.

Besides, Article 104 of the Basic Law prescribes that:

"When assuming office, the Chief Executive, principal officials, members of the Executive Council and of the Legislative Council, judges of the courts at all levels and other members of the judiciary in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region must, in accordance with law, swear to uphold the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China and swear allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China."

One of the purposes of the Bill is to replace the oaths with colonialist overtone and to implement Article 104 of the Basic Law through local legislation. The new oaths proposed are based on the relevant resolution passed by the Preparatory Committee for the Hong Kong SAR last month. The relevant provisions are stipulated in clauses 10 to 14 and clauses 18 to 19 of the Bill.

Furthermore, the Bill retains certain oaths which are not mentioned in Article 104 of the Basic Law and the resolution of the Preparatory Committee. These include the Oath of Fidelity for Executive Council Members and the Oath of Secrecy for the Clerk and Deputy Clerk to the Executive Council. The purpose of the Oath of Secrecy is to ensure that the officers concerned will not disclose any documents or information obtained in the course of their work. The Oath of Fidelity, apart from ensuring that Executive Council Members will maintain the confidentiality of the documents or information which they obtain in the course their work, also seeks to ensure that the rule of collective responsibility is observed in the decision-making of the Executive Council. These stipulations are very important to the effective operation of the Executive Council. The relevant provisions are contained in clause 15 and Parts VI and VII of clause 18.

Clauses 6 to 8 of the Bill amend some wordings or terms in the existing Ordinance to cope with the situation after 30 June.

The English version of the existing Ordinance is interspersed with some oaths and declarations in Chinese. Similarly, the Chinese version of the Ordinance is also interspersed with English wordings. For the sake of clarity, the Bill deletes the Chinese part from the English version and the English part from the Chinese version. The relevant provisions are stated in clauses 4, 5 and 18 of the Bill.

With these remarks, Madam President, I move the Second Reading of the Oaths and Declarations (Amendment) Bill 1997.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Oaths and Declarations (Amendment) Bill 1997 be read the Second time. In accordance with Rule 54(4) of the Rules of Procedure, the debate is now adjourned and the Bill referred to the House Committee. We will now resume the Second Reading debate on four Bills. The first is the National Flag and National Emblem Bill. Does any Member wish to speak? Mr Kennedy WONG.

MR KENNEDY WONG (in Cantonese): Madam President, just as Mr HO Sai-chu, the Chairman of the Bills Committee, reported a moment ago, the National Flag and National Emblem Bill was scrutinized in detail by the Bills Committee. As the Deputy Chairman of the Bills Committee, I support the content of the report submitted by the Bills Committee. I would like to point out in particular that, during the Bills Committee's scrutiny of the Bill, a considerable number of members viewed that it was necessary to impose different penalties for desecrating the national flag/emblem on the one hand, and for descrating the regional flag/emblem on the other. Since the penalty for desecrating the national flag/emblem involves the application of national laws in the Hong Kong SAR, I do not think that there should be any disputes. In regard to the provisions of the Bill, such as those on the format and conditions governing the use of the national flag/emblem in the SAR, under which no one is allowed to display or use a national flag/emblem which is damaged, defiled, faded or non-standard, many people expressed concern. Their worry was that they would not be sure about the circumstances under which they could use the national flag/national emblem. The Chief Executive's Office later explained that the display of exhibits with designs of the national flag inside buildings or vehicles would not be considered as decoration in nature and no offence would arise from such display. On the other hand, the Bill prohibits the inclusion of the national flag, the national emblem or their designs in the trademark of any companies or organizations, and if the design of the national flag/appears in the background of advertisements or films not as an object of purposeful display, no offence will thus be constituted. These points have already been explained. I hope that, after the law has come into effect after 1 July, the SAR Government will publicize it extensively as soon as possible so that the people can get to know this Ordinance more. I support the passage of the National Flag and National Emblem Bill. I have made these remarks also on behalf of Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr Eric LI, Mrs Elsie TU, Mrs Peggy LAM, Mr HUI Yin-fat and Prof NG Ching-fai.

I so submit.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung.

MR YEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, I am a member of the Bills Committee on the National Flag and National Emblem Bill and the Regional Flag and the Regional Emblem Bill. The Committee has, in its past three meetings, discussed and scrutinized those two Bills in detail. Most of its opinions and recommendations have been accepted by the Chief Executive's Office and are reflected in the Committee stage amendments.

In the course of our scrutiny, the most controversial issue was whether or not the maximum penalty for desecrating the national flag/emblem should be the same as that for descrating the regional flag/emblem, that is, a fine at level 5 and imprisonment for three years. Arguing that the national flag/emblem should not be treated the same as the regional flag/emblem, some Members proposed to lower the maximum penalty for desecrating the regional flag/emblem.

I do not agree that the maximum penalty for desecrating the regional flag/emblem should be lowered, and I have already set out my reasons in a representation presented to the Chief Executive's Office and Honourable colleagues of the Provisional Legislative Council on 30 May. For that reason, I do not intend to read out the whole representation today.

However, I would like to emphasize one point: the intent behind any legislation on the national flag/emblem and the regional flag/emblem should aim at fostering a respect for and the protection of the national flag/emblem and the regional flag/emblem.

This issue reminds us exactly of the fact that everyone should enjoy the same human rights and dignity regardless of any differences in wealth and social status. In the case of a murder, for example, the severity of the penalty to be imposed on the murderer for the offence should not vary by taking account of whether the murdered is a person of high status or just a man in the street. It is not right to impose a heavier penalty by arguing that the victim is a rich man or a man of higher status, nor is it right to impose a lighter penalty by arguing that the victim is just an ordinary person of lower status. This is because for any legislation, what counts is the unlawful act involved, not the victims.

Following this line of reasoning, since desecrating the regional flag/emblem and desecrating the national flag/emblem are both acts which have to be prohibited, they should be punishable by the same level of penalty.

If we lower the maximum penalty for desecrating the regional flag/emblem, we would bring about the adverse effect of belittling ourselves and other undesirable consequences. For instance, the dignified image of the regional flag/emblem may be reduced to the extent that people may no longer bother to respect or protect the regional flag/emblem. Worse still, tendencies of desecrating the regional flag/emblem may be encouraged.

I am very pleased to learn that the Chief Executive's Office eventually decided to retain a uniform level of maximum penalty for desecrating the regional flag/emblem and for desecrating the national flag/emblem. This will undoubtedly maintain the dignified image of the regional flag/emblem, and is conducive to the protection of and respect for the regional flag/emblem. At the same time, the Chief Executive's Office also decided to deal with acts of desecrating the regional flag/emblem of a minor nature as summary offences, thus lowering the fine to level 3 and the term of imprisonment to one year. Such an approach is able to take account of the reality that there is a difference in status between the state and the SAR, and is also able to strike a reasonable balance between "one country" and "two systems". For that reason, it is worth supporting.

Madam President, as the principal of a patriotic school, I am particularly moved by feelings of all kinds at a time when the National Flag and National Emblem Bill is about to be enacted. Under the British Hong Kong colonial administration in the past, our school was labelled as one with a political background and forced to experience discrimination of all kinds because we hoisted the national flag of our motherland. Today, I have the honour of participating in the formulation and enactment of this Bill, which will, hereafter, provide legal protection to the hoisting and flying of our national flag. Therefore, I am particularly overwhelmed by feelings of excitement. I hope that, after 1 July, every Hong Kong resident will make it his own duty to protect the dignity of the national flag/emblem, so that our national flag will fly forever across the skyline of Hong Kong.

With these remarks, I support the National Flag and National Emblem Bill and the Regional Flag and Regional Emblem Bill.

Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr TANG Siu-tong.

DR TANG SIU-TONG (in Cantonese): Madam President, just now the Honourable HO Sai-chu, Chairman of the Bills Committee, has given a detailed report on the Bills Committee's deliberations and its proposed amendments. As a member of the Bills Committee, I personally think that the national flag/emblem and the regional flag/emblem should all be given equal respect. This is very much like the case of a family in which the grandfather and the father should receive the same degree of respect and love.

With regard to the amendments moved by the Government, which seek to draw up some mild penalties of varying levels for desecrating the national flag/emblem and for desecrating the regional flag/emblem, the Hong Kong Progressive Alliance has concluded, after careful consideration, that the amendments are mild but sufficient to deter unruly behaviour. Therefore we support the Bill.

Madam President, these are my remarks.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? Secretary for Policy Co-ordination, do you wish to reply?

SECRETARY FOR POLICY CO-ORDINATION (in Cantonese): Madam President, first of all, I would like to thank the Honourable HO Sai-chu and those Members and legal advisers who attended the Bills Committee meetings on the 17th and 24th of last month for their detailed scrutiny of the National Flag and National Emblem Bill.

When the National Flag and National Emblem Bill was put before this Council on the 3th of last month, my colleague already gave a very detailed account of the background, justifications and provisions of the Bill. Therefore, I do not intend to repeat them here. But I would like to emphasize two points:

First, the purpose of the National Flag and National Emblem Bill is to implement in the SAR, through local legislation, the National Flag Law of the People's Republic of China and the National Emblem Law of the People's Republic of China, which were passed in 1990 and 1991 respectively by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. Consequently, the provisions of the Bill have to keep in line with the provisions of these two national laws as applied to Hong Kong, for we simply have no authority to change the provisions of national laws.

Second, some particular issues relating to the implementation of these two national laws are unique to Hong Kong. For example, at which government buildings should the national flag hoisted and the national emblem displayed? What should be noted when using the national flag and the national emblem in the SAR? We will provide the relevant guidelines through the Chief Executive's directives. The specifications concerned will be announced shortly and will be published in the Gazette after 1 July.

Madam President, in the two meetings last month, the Bills Committee basically did not raise any objection to the Bill as a whole. But, in respect of the drafting of the provisions, members did express very precious opinions. In this connection, I would like to point out that the amendments which I will move at the Committee stage are our responses to the opinions of the Bills Committee. The provisions of the bill, after these amendments, will be much clearer. I am therefore very grateful to the Bills Committee for its support and constructive views.

With these remarks, Madam President, I commend the National Flag and National Emblem Bill to this Council.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the National Flag and National Emblem 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): National Flag and National Emblem Bill.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Regional Flag and Regional Emblem Bill. Does any Member wish to speak? Mr Kennedy WONG.

MR KENNEDY WONG (in Cantonese): Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I am also the Deputy Chairman of the Bills Committee on the Regional Flag and Regional Emblem Bill. I support the content of the report which the Bills Committee presented to the Provisional Legislative Council. A considerable number of members think that the penalties for desecrating the national flag/emblem should be different from those for desecrating the regional flag/emblem. The Chief Executive's Office has thus decided to move a Committee stage amendment to clause 7 of the Regional Flag and Regional Emblem Bill with the purpose of dividing the penalties into two levels. As a result, the maximum penalty for offences dealt with under summary procedures will be reduced to a fine of $10,000 and imprisonment for one year. This is an encouraging amendment. I think that the report of the Bills Committee complies with the principle of "one country, two systems", and so, I support the content of the report. I have made these remarks also on behalf of Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr Eric LI, Mrs Elsie TU, Mrs Peggy LAM, Mr HUI Yin-fat and Prof NG Ching-fai.

I so submit.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? Secretary for Policy Co-ordination, do you wish to reply?

SECRETARY FOR POLICY CO-ORDINATION (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Regional Flag and Regional Emblem Bill and the National Flag and National Emblem Bill were scrutinized together by the same Bills Committee.

The Chief Executive's Office, after discussing with the Bills Committee, decided to move Committee stage amendments in response to the questions and opinions raised by the Bills Committee. Most of the amendments are technical and textual which seek to enhance the clarity of the provisions.

The only amendment which is relatively more controversial relates to the maximum penalty for wilfully desecrating the regional flag/emblem in public. Just now a number of Members have also mentioned this issue. I hope that Members will support our proposal which will maintain the protection of and respect for the regional flag/emblem on the one hand, and take account of the difference in status between the State and the SAR on the other. I shall move amendments at the Committee stage later and introduce this proposal into the Regional Flag and Regional Emblem Bill.

With these remarks, Madam President, I commend the Bill to Members.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the Regional Flag and Regional Emblem 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): Regional Flag and Regional Emblem Bill.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Societies (Amendment) Bill 1997. Does any Member wish to speak? Miss Maria TAM.

MISS MARIA TAM (in Cantonese): Thank you, Madam President. The Chinese and the British Governments signed the Sino-British Joint Declaration in December 1984 on the future of Hong Kong. The Declaration states that "the laws currently in force in Hong Kong will remain basically unchanged". By this, it is meant that the laws in force in 1984 will remain basically unchanged. As a result of this premise, the Basic Law subsequently enacted in 1990 also contains provisions which will allow the laws previously in force in Hong Kong, except for any that contravene the Basic Law, to be retained as the laws of the Hong Kong Special Adminstrative Region (SAR). Article 160 of the Basic Law stipulates that, upon the establishment of the SAR, the laws previously in force in Hong Kong shall be adopted as laws of the SAR except for those which the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPC) declares to be in contravention of the Basic Law. Then, on 23 February 1997, the Standing Committee of the NPC of the People's Republic of China resolved pursuant to Article 160 of the Basic Law that the Societies Ordinance and the Public Order Ordinance would not be adopted as laws of the SAR because they had been extensively amended in 1992 and 1995 respectively in contravention of the Basic Law. And, in order to effectuate a high degree of autonomy for the SAR, the issue of enacting replacement legislation would be left to the SAR itself. This is what this Council is going to do today. With regard to the Societies (Amendment) Bill 1997, there are two points which I have to explain in particular. Before the amendments in 1992, societies in Hong Kong had to apply for registration. However, following the amendments concerned, application for registration was replaced by notification. Besides, Article 23 of the Basic Law states that political bodies of Hong Kong are prohibited from establishing ties with foreign political organizations. However, such a prohibition which was originally found in the Ordinance was deleted in the 1992 amendment exercise. Therefore we must now fill the resultant gap.

The Chief Executive's Office published the "Consultation Document on Civil Liberties and Social Order Consultation" in April 1997, and it received enthusiastic responses from members of the public. After the Document was published, some people took it as an attempt to reinstate draconian laws. In fact, this is a totally wrong concept because these two Bills actually seek to enact a new Public Order Ordinance and a new Societies Ordinance for the SAR. They do not seek to reinstate the pre-1992 incarnation of the Ordinances.

In the Provisional Legislative Council meeting on 10 May 1997, this Council debated a motion on the "Consultation Document on Civil Liberties and Social Order ". The Honourable Mrs Elsie TU moved an amendment to the motion, the third point of which advocated that we should strike a reasonable balance between civil liberties and social order. This principle is supported by most of our Honourable colleagues. It is with this principle in mind that the Bills Committee set about the task of scrutinizing these two Bills.

Having taken the views of the public into consideration, the Chief Executive's Office amended the proposals contained in the Consultation Document on quite a large scale and submitted the Bills to this Council on 17 May for scrutiny. The Bills Committee subsequently held three separate meetings on 24, 27 and 31 May to study the bills and the submissions. Of the three submissions received from the public, one is in support of the proposals of the Chief Executive's Office. As for the remaining two, their views will be reflected in the amendments to be moved later by Mr CHAN Choi-hi and Mr Bruce LIU. Since we now have an opportunity of open discussion, I would like to outline the more singificant outcomes of our scrutiny.

We agree that societies have to apply for registration and that the Societies Officer may, in consultation with the Secretary for Security, refuse to register a society or to exempt it from registration. This is based on the following two conditions:

(1) He must reasonably believe that his refusal is in the interest of national security, public safey, public order or protecting the rights and freedoms of others. We agree that the interpretation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights should apply in such cases.

(2) The society concerned is a political body and has connections with "foreign political organizations" or political organizations of Taiwan.

Following our study, we notice that the wording and contents of the Bill are borrowed from Section 2 386, Title 18 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure of the United States.

As for the controversial issues involved, the first concerns the definition of "national security". In fact, the concept of "national security" is not new to Hong Kong people, evidenced by references to the same concept in Articles 17 and 18 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance. Furthermore, the Official Secrets Act also prohibits the conduct of any activities in Hong Kong which may pose a threat to the security of mainland United Kingdom. After 1 July, China will resume its exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong and Hong Kong will become part of the territory of China. Since we have an obligation to safeguard the interests of the State as a whole, we support the definition of national security as proposed by the Chief Executive's Office, that is, "the safeguarding of the territorial integrity and the independence of the People's Republic of China". Another point we have also considered is whether or not an explicit provision should be drawn up to define threats to national security as military threats only, so that no offences shall be constituted unless there is real evidence of such military threats. And, for obvious reasons, if we are able to prove that the territory of the State is under military threats, the dimension of the problem may have already gone beyond the scope of whether or not a society should be allowed to register, because the situation will be much more serious.

In this connection, the Chief Executive's Office has explained that the international community has so far been unable to decide whether or not the definition of national security should take account of the factor of military threats. For that reason, the Bills Committee has agreed not to draw in the factor of military threats. That said, we still have doubts about the administrative guidelines which the Chief Executive's Office will issue to the Societies Officer for the purpose of specifying when a registration application should be accepted or rejected on the grounds of national security or public safety, the reason being these guidelines are not supplementary legislation subject to scrutiny by this Council. Therefore, in the course of discussion, we suggested that the practice of the current Legislative Council over there in Hong Kong should be copied or maintained. That is to say, an ad hoc group should be formed to study the matters concerned in order to ensure a sensible implementation of the law. This point has not been settled yet, though the original Ordinance provides for an appeal channel through the Governor in Council, and this channel will in the future become the Chief Executive in Council. In any case, a judicial review will provide a safeguard as the last resort. For these reasons, we have accepted the definition of "national security" proposed by the Chief Executive's Office.

The second emphasis of our study concerns whether or not the provision on restricting Hong Kong political bodies from having connections with foreign political organizations should be replaced by one which restricts them from establishing connections with political organizations outside Hong Kong. Mr Bruce LIU will later move an amendment to the effect of expanding the scope of restriction to cover connections with political bodies outside Hong Kong. We have also taken his opinion into consideration, but concluded that since our aim now is to fill the gap left by a voided ordinance, and in doing so, our primary concern should be the connections between Hong Kong political bodies and foreign political organizations and not be tempted too easily to expand the scope and restrict connection with both foreign political organizations and those outside Hong Kong. We know only too well that it is far from being desirable to bring connections with political organizations of Taiwan within the ambit of this Bill. However, most members think that this restriction is essential, and we have decided to accept this arrangement. Will political organizations of Hong Kong have any connections with political organizations outside Hong Kong in the future? Should such connections be prohibited; and if yes, then how? I believe we shall tackle these questions in the light of the actual situations.

Third, the definition of "connection". On this, some Committee members have tried to seek detailed and thorough clarifications from the Chief Executive's Office. In case people belonging to foreign political organizations take part in the activities of political organizations in Hong Kong, such as assisting in the hiring of venues, decorating the venue or hanging up banners, will they be considered as participating in the management of Hong Kong political organizations? Will they be considered as having political connections with Hong Kong political organizations? After consideration, the Chief Executive's Office has decided to confine the scope of restriction to acts of participating in the decision-making process. Of course, if a person escalates or intensifies his involvement, moving from sundry work to the exercise of influences over the decision-making processes of a Hong Kong political organization, he will have violated the law, and we will have to deal with each individually.

We recognize that many of the provisions of the Societies (Amendment) Ordinance 1992 do not in fact contravene the Basic Law, and we have advised the Chief Executive's Office accordingly. They have taken our advice and amended the wording of the Bill to confirm that those provisions of the Societies Ordinance passed in 1992 which do not contravene the Basic Law will continue to have legal effect after 1 July 1997. The amended wording of the relevant provision now reads: "Subject to the amendments made in this Ordinance, the Societies (Amendment) Ordinance 1992 (75 of 1992) and any amendments to the Societies Ordinance (Cap. 151) made since the Societies (Amendment) Ordinance 1992 (75 of 1992) are, to avoid doubt, adopted as laws of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and continue to have legal effect."

The last point is about the new exemption clause proposed by Mr Bruce LIU. He hopes that this Ordinance will not apply to bodies formed solely for religious, charitable, social or recreational purposes with not more than 30 members and office-bearers. I know that there will be some arguments on this later on, but I just want to say that we are now trying to draw up a new ordinance, and one of the main reasons for our doing so is to re-introduce a system of application for registration. That being the case, the addition of a new automatic exemption clause will, I think, run counter to our spirit of enacting a piece of replacement legislation. As a result, I hope Members will consider the matter carefully.

Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr NGAN Kam-chuen.

MR NGAN KAM-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Madam President, Hong Kong is a community which respects human rights and the rule of law. However, while its citizens attach great importance to freedom of speech, of association, of assembly and of procession, they should understand that political stability is a prerequisite for the development of the community. In order to ensure the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong, the public must not tolerate any behaviour that would undermine social order. Therefore, any law which is related to civil liberties has to strike a balance between the protection of human rights and the maintenance of social order.

The Chief Executive of the SAR has proposed to amend the current Public Order Ordinance and Societies Ordinance not because he wants to "reinstate draconian laws", as alleged by some in the community, but because the Hong Kong Government has unilaterally amended the Public Order Ordinance and the Societies Ordinance in contravention of Article 8 of the Basic Law which states that the laws previously in force in Hong Kong shall be maintained. This has led the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress to resolve that these two Ordinances will not be adopted as laws of the SAR. Therefore, in order to fill the "legal vacuum" and to ensure the normal operation of the SAR upon its establishment on 1 July, the Chief Executive's Office has no alternative but to amend these two Ordinances.

In an attempt to solicit public views on amending these two Ordinances, the Chief Executive's Office has even published a Consultation Document on Civil Liberties and Social Order to form the basis for a public consultation exercise and the people's opinions are adequately reflected in the two Bills published after the consultation exercise. In fact, what is said in the Consultation Document complies with the spirit underlying the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. So, even if the proposed amendments are passed, the freedoms and rights to be enjoyed by the Hong Kong people will not be much different from those they enjoyed in the past.

If we compare the Public Order Ordinance and the Societies Ordinance of the SAR with similar laws in the United Kingdom and the United States, we will notice that the SAR ones are much more lenient. In the United Kingdom, for example, in order to restrict the activities of the separatists of Northern Ireland, many harsh laws are put in place, under which the police are empowered to ban any procession and assembly, and to search the organizations concerned. In the United States, which has always flaunted its commitment to human rights, if one wants to hold an assembly in San Francisco, one has to apply for permission 60 days in advance. In contrast, only a seven-day notice is required in Hong Kong. What is more, administrative guidelines will be issued to the Commissioner of Police to make sure that when he considers using "national security" as a justification for prohibiting an assembly, he has to satisfy himself that what he does is "necessary in a democratic society". With such clear and well-defined stipulations, the Chief Executive's Office of the SAR will, I believe, be able to allay the Hong Kong people's doubts and anxieties.

As for the amendments to the Societies Ordinance, the Chief Executive's Office has also made adjustments after listening to the citizens' views. Clear definitions are laid down for "national security" and "political organization", and restrictions on foreign donations are also confined to "financial contributions, financial sponsorships or financial support of any kind or loans, directly or indirectly, from a foreign political organization". There are also separate provisions prohibiting financial support from political organizations of Taiwan.

What I have just said illustrates that the Chief Executive's proposals to amend the existing Public Order Ordinance and Societies Ordinance are based on pragmatism and a genuine concern for the protection of the individual rights and freedoms enjoyed by the Hong Kong people.

Madam President, I so submit.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mrs Selina CHOW.

MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Madam President, I support the passage of these two amendment Bills on behalf of the Liberal Party, and I also want to express our views on the amendments proposed by Mr Bruce LIU and Mr CHAN Choi-hi.

During the motion debate on the Consultation Document, we already elaborated the reasons why we would, in principle, support the Bills to be moved by the Chief Executive's Office. So, I shall not repeat our views here. We also support the amendments proposed by the Bills Committee in the course of its scrutiny. It is undeniable that the Hong Kong people do have doubts about the concept of "national security". Although its definition has been clarified in the Bill and the administrative guidelines will help to a certain extent, we still hope that the SAR Government will gauge and appreciate the views of the Hong Kong people as much as possible and refrain from stretching the application of this concept beyond the promised parameters. Both the executive and the Chief Executive himself have the responsibility to ensure that the justifications for invoking this concept are not abused. That said, I do not mean that we have to remove the clause from the Bill.

Such a provision on national security is compatible with the circumstances of any country, even western democracies, provided that it is not abused. Therefore, I do not agree to Mr CHAN Choi-hi's amendment, which seeks to remove this concept from the Bill. As for the amendments of Mr Bruce LIU on the connections of societies, I must say that his proposal on replacing "foreign political organizations" and "political organizations of Taiwan" with "political organizations outside Hong Kong" is certainly well-intentioned. However, he has overlooked the fact that after Hong Kong has become part of China again, we will be bound to see a gradual yet inevitable building up of relationships between the political activities of Hong Kong and those on the Mainland. For example, the representative assemblies of Hong Kong will establish relationship with the People's Congresses at various levels on the Mainland and with the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. That being the case, we should not prohibit connections with political organization of the Mainland, especially because even under the existing statutory provisions in respect of the Legislative Council, deputies to the National People's Congress and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference are allowed to join the Legislative Council. As a result, we should retain the terms of "foreign political organizations" and "political organizations of Taiwan" in the Bill.

With these remarks, Madam President, I support the Second Reading of these two amendment Bills.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Prof NG Ching-fai.

PROF NG CHING-FAI (in Cantonese): Madam President, our debate today concerns two Bills which are extremely important to the political activities of the future SAR.

Article 27 of the Basic Law states clearly that Hong Kong residents shall have freedom of association, of assembly, of procession and of demonstration. What the Chief Executive's Office of the SAR puts before us today are two Bills which aim precisely to give the people such individual freedoms, while ensuring at the same time that the law enforcement agencies can still work smoothly to prevent the community at large from being adversely affected.

In the Societies (Amendment) Bill 1997 and the Public Order (Amendment) Bill 1997, the Second Reading of which is resumed at this Meeting, the concept of "national security" is introduced. This has stirred up some discussions in the community and this Council. In fact, "national security" as a concept is both "old" and "new". In the existing laws of Hong Kong, the concept of "national security" is already present, which is why it can be described as an "old" concept. But, we must also note that, to the man in the street, it is a "new" concept, because in the existing laws of Hong Kong, the term "state" refers to a far-away country called the United Kingdom, with which most people do not feel any major connection. However, the term "state" in these two Bills refers to our own country, which is right next to us. As the old Chinese saying goes: "one becomes nervous when one gets close to one's homeland". So, the concern thus aroused is understandable. But if people looking at the concept of the "State" from a wider perspective, they will certainly reach this conclusion: since the political setting of Hong Kong will change fundamentally after 1 July 1997, Hong Kong, as an SAR of China, must inevitably safeguard the national security of the State. For this reason, I think that the concept of "national security" introduced in these two Bills can comply with the spirit of "one country, two systems" and with the transformation of the political ecology of Hong Kong.

Madam President, I also notice that the Bills and the related administrative measures put before us today have in fact incorporated as many as 11 changes to the original proposals set out in the Consultation Document and quite many of them are major and substantial changes. Obviously, the Chief Executive's Office has adopted the opinions of many men of insight in the community, including Honourable colleagues of this Council. This shows that the consultation has been done seriously and that these two Bills do command social support.

With these remarks, Madam President, I support these two Bills.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Yin-fat.

MR HUI YIN-FAT (in Cantonese): Thank you, Madam President. On behalf of the social welfare sector, I would like to comment on the Committee stage amendments to the Societies (Amendment) Bill 1997 proposed by Mr Bruce LIU.

Mr Bruce LIU's amendment to clause 4, which concerns a societies registration system seeks to introduce a new provision under which any society formed solely for religious, charitable, social or recreational purposes and which consists of not more than 30 persons as members can be exempted from applying to the Societies Officer for registration or exemption from registration.

As I pointed out at the Meeting of this Council on 10 May, the social welfare sector is against the reinstatement of a societies registration system as proposed in the Bill because non-governmental social service organizations have been encouraging active participation by their clients in the process of services rendition. A registration system will hinder the free formation of some so-called self-help organizations, such as kaifong organizations, district concern groups and so on, which are necessary for the purpose. This will block the channels for the people to redress their grievances, thus producing adverse effects on the amelioration of social conflicts.

In my opinion, the underlying spirit of the amendment proposed by Mr Bruce LIU is exactly the same as the rationale behind sections 7 and 13 of the Public Order Ordinance after its amendment in 1995. Under these two sections, an assembly with not more than 50 participants or a public procession with not more than 30 participants are both exempted from application with the authorities. These two exemptions applicable to public processions and assemblies have not been deleted from the Public Order (Amendment) Bill 1997 now under discussion. But, we in the social welfare sector believe that if this Council agrees to exempt a society with not more than 30 members from applying for registration, it will help dispel the worries and anxieties of the social welfare sector and the public at large with respect to freedom of assembly.

Madam President, these are my remarks.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP Kwok-him.

MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): Madam President, that the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress of China has resolved not to adopt some specific provisions of the existing Public Order Ordinance and the Societies Ordinance as laws of the future Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and that the Chief Executive's Office must therefore propose amendments to the Public Order Ordinance and the Societies Ordinance in order to avoid the resultant legal vacuum are the political realities which the SAR Government is facing. The Chief Executive's Office has reiterated time and again that these Bills, based on the Basic Law and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), seek to strike a right balance between civil liberties and social order. The Bills have aroused extensive discussions in the community during the consultation period and quite many diverse opinions have been expressed.

Madam President, during the consultation period, some people dismissed the consultation exercise by the Chief Executive's Office as "a show of bogus democracy and bogus consultation". In an open consultation session, some people even stirred up troubles, trying to prevent others from speaking or deprive them of their right to express their opinions. The people of Hong Kong cannot accept such behaviour, nor can they tolerate it. Since the Bills aim mainly to balance the interests of all the parties involved, people should refrain from seeing things in a dichotomy of black and white. As we all know now, the consultation exercise has prompted the Chief Executive's Office, receptive as it is, to make further amendments to a lot of ambiguous and grey areas, taking account of public opinions. For instance, the definition of "national security", a new concept to Hong Kong which was once misconstrued as malignant and menacing in nature, has now been further amended to denote the "safeguarding of the territorial integrity and independence of the People's Republic of China." The Democratic Alliance for Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB) supports this definition, for bearing in mind the overall interests of Hong Kong and China in the future, there is a need to consider some necessary measures to uphold China's sovereignty. The concept is just defensive in nature.

Madam President, the most contentious point concerning the discussions on the Societies Ordinance is the proposal that local political organizations or bodies will be prohibited from receiving financial support from or establishing ties with foreign political organizations. Owing to the close geographical proximity of Hong Kong to China, foreign political organizations may find it both possible and within their ability to control local political organizations through financial means and penetrate into the political establishment of Hong Kong in order to conduct anti-China political activities. It is therefore necessary to enact the proposed legislation in accordance with the Basic Law. The DAB supports this. Concerning the proposal of the Chief Executive's Office to define "political organizations" as only political parties taking part in elections to the three tiers of government, I think this proposed definition is more precise than the previous one. The DAB also considers that the deletion of the restriction on personal donations is a positive move, illustrating that the Chief Executive's Office is receptive to public opinions. As for the treatment of Taiwan under a separate provision in the Bill, we think that this has solved the problem which the DAB has tried to solve by introducing the idea of "places outside Hong Kong". This is because such a definition can implement the concept of "One China" while taking account of existing political realities.

Regarding the Public Order Ordinance, some critics argue that making references to the restrictions set out in the international covenants as reasons for objection to processions and assemblies is in fact tantamount to a curtailment of the people's freedom with respect to such activities. However, a rational analysis of the contents of the international covenants will enable us to find out the truth easily. The proposed amendments represent the bottomline of defence which is absolutely required for the protection of overall social stability and personal rights, and they do not differ from the existing practice to any large extent. And, let us not forget that, in order to prevent the police from abusing their power of objection, the proposed amendments have provided for the establishment of an independent appeals board as a channel of redress for rejected applicants. This arrangement will strike a balance and is supported by the DAB. Last but not least, the Chief Executive's Office has also suggested that a public procession or assembly may proceed if the organizers do not receive a "Notice of No Objection". And, the Commissioner of Police will also be vested with discretionary powers to approve the conduct of public processions or assemblies with notices shorter than 48 hours under special circumstances. All these amendments are obvious attempts to strike a balance after listening to and accepting the people's opinions.

With these remarks, Madam President, I support these two amendment Bills on behalf of the DAB.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr NG Leung-sing.

MR NG LEUNG-SING (in Cantonese): Madam President, the long years of hard work of all trades and industries in Hong Kong has turned the territory into a highly developed service centre for international finance and commerce. Since prospects of profit-making are great, international capitals have flocked to Hong Kong, to such an extent that they are now occupying an important positionin in our economy. As indicated by the statistics compiled by the Hong Kong Government, the total volume of foreign investments in the non-manufacturing sector of Hong Kong was already as large as HK$487.3 billion as at the end of the year before last. Of all such foreign investments, British investments topped the list with $143.1 billion, or 29.4% of the total volume of foreign investments. Second on the list was the investments from mainland China, which stood at $104.6 billion, representing 21.5% of all foreign investments. Mainland China was followed by Japan and the United States, with their respective investments of $69.9 billion and $58.8 billion accounting for 14.4% and 12.1% of that category of investments respectively. The total investments made by these four countries accounted for 80% of all foreign investments in Hong Kong.

For the banking sector, as at the end of 1996, there were 182 licensed banks in Hong Kong, of which 151, or 83% of the total, were registered banks of overseas countries. As for the Hong Kong offices of overseas banks and authorized institutions operating under the Banking Ordinance, there was a total of 368 from 40 different countries. Of the first 100 leading banks in the world, 80 are in operation in Hong Kong.

In order to maintain the high degree of openness and internationalization of our economy which Hong Kong has achieved over the years, there must be a stable investment environment. The proposed amendments put before this Council by the Chief Executive's Office will help establish in Hong Kong a social order characterized by the rule of law, stability and harmony. Furthermore, it will help maintain a social environment centred around economic activities, in which foreign and local investors can make investments and operate businesses with more confidence. So, in my opinion, the significance of the amendments is related not only to public order and the establishment of societies. Instead, these amendments will closely affect our economy and the people's livelihood, and will also play a positive role in protecting and promoting the long-term prosperity and stability of the Hong Kong economy and strengthening investors' confidence in making investments in Hong Kong. They will also make a lot of contributions to the employment opportunities of the Hong Kong people. I therefore support the passage of the Societies (Amendment) Bill 1997 and the Public Order (Amendment) Bill 1997.

These are my remarks.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Siu-yee.

MR WONG SIU-YEE (in Cantonese): Madam President, it is a matter of immense significance for this Council to scrutinize and pass the the Public Order (Amendment) Bill 1997 and the Societies (Amendment) Bill 1997. The significance lies not only in the presence of concrete and specific laws which can strike a balance between civil liberties and social order upon the establishment of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR), but also in the ability of the relevant laws to comply with the principle of "one country, two systems". So, the passage of the Bills will bring many benefits to the Hong Kong people.

The first benefit. There will be a timely statutory guarantee for the people's freedom of procession, of assembly and of association right after the establishment of the SAR. Although the Basic Law does provide for such freedoms for Hong Kong people, the relevant provisions, being abstract and general, have to be implemented through concrete and specific legislation. These two amendment Bills will provide exactly the kind of legal protection to the Hong Kong people's freedoms and rights. At present, there is a specious argument in the community that the scrutiny and passing of these amendment Bills by this Council will tighten the people's freedom of public procession and of association. In fact, the opposite is the case. The amendment Bills will in effect give the public more latitude in exercising their freedoms and rights under the law. This is because while the Bills are indeed very lenient towards the freedom of procession and of association, they do set out some necessary restrictions to ensure that freedom itself will not be stifled by an entire absence of control for absolute freedom will mean the end of freedom itself. To substantiate, I can quote the wise comments of many great personalities. For instance, Madame ROLAND once said, "O liberty! What crimes are committed in thy name!". Her words are not alarmist talk because freedom should be exercised under a pre-condition that no harm will be done to other people and society at large. If, in the name of freedom, people can infringe on others' freedoms or disturb social order, this kind of "freedom" will only bring a sense of insecurity to all, thus stiffling real freedom. So, the Public Order (Amendment) Bill 1997 and the Societies (Amendment) Bill 1997, the restrictions of which are both lenient and necessary, will serve exactly the purpose of guaranteeing the people's freedoms of public procession and of association under the law.

Madam President, the second benefit. The amendments to the Public Order Ordinance and the Societies Ordinance will bring the desired benefits as suggested in the saying "Fence good, neighbour good". This is a Western proverb, and I have adopted it to describe the benefits which these two amendment Bills will bring to the people of Hong Kong. For example, the Public Order (Amendment) Bill 1997 will in fact erect a safety "fence" separating demonstrators and the wider community who do not take part in demonstrations. Such a fence can ensure that the two sides can co-exist peacefully and harmoniously as good neighbours who do not seek to influence one another. As for the Societies (Amendment) Bill 1997, its provision on prohibiting foreign political organizations from establishing connections with local political organizations will in fact erect a safety "fence" of friendship between mainland China and Hong Kong. If foreign political organizations are allowed to establish connections with local political organizations thus turning Hong Kong into a base for staying interfering and subversive activities against China, the "fence" between the two systems of Hong Kong and China will inevitably sustain damage, so much so that the two systems may become "quarrelsome neighbours" who cannot co-exist in harmony. Should this scenario materialize, it will deal a blow to the principle of "one country, two systems", thus adversely affecting the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong.

Madam President, I have quoted the Western proverb of "Fence good, neighbour good" to illustrate the need for a state of harmony both among the Hong Kong people themselves as well as between the two systems of Hong Kong and mainland China. And, such a need is also implied under the principle of "one country". Inspite of this, Mr Bruce LIU has proposed in his amendments that the concept of "political organizations outside Hong Kong" be introduced. In fact, it is inappropriate to cover China under this concept, and it also departs from the spirit of "one country" under the principle of "one country, two systems" because China will be treated as a foreign country. Apart from being politically unworkable, this also stands against good sense. The reason is that since it is in the interests of China to maintain the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong, how can China do anything to contravene the principle of "one country, two systems"?

With these remarks, Madam President, I support the motion.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Raymond HO.

DR RAYMOND HO (in Cantonese): Madam President, within a short span of just two months, the Chief Executive's Office has managed to complete the consultation exercise on the Public Order (Amendment) Bill 1997 and the Societies (Amendment) Bill 1997 and present them to the Provisional Legislative Council for scrutiny. Let me express my appreciation for its hard work here. During the consultation exercise, people from all walks of life in Hong Kong have expressed their opinions extensively. Some constructive suggestions have also been reflected in the amendments, thus bringing the new amendment Bills more in line with the principle of "striking a right balance between civil liberties and social order".

In the new amendments to the Public Order Ordinance, clearer provisions on the procedures for holding public processions are prescribed. It is clearly stipulated that prior to the holding of a public procession, an application must be made to the police. However, in case an application has been made within the specified time and no notice of objection from the Commissioner of Police is received within the specified time, it can be considered that the Commissioner of Police does not object to the conduct of the public procession.

On the other hand, the Public Order Ordinance and the Societies Ordinance, if eventually amended, have retained the discretionary powers of the police to accept shorter notice than seven days for a public procession, which means that the minimum notice of 48 hours as originally proposed is deleted. Since many processions are organized in response to incidents of an unexpected nature, this amendment will indeed take care of the need concerned.

The latest proposed amendments to the Societies (Amendment) Bill 1997 concern the foreign connections of political organizations of Hong Kong. Under the proposed amendments, restrictions on foreign donations will be applied only to financial contributions made directly or indirectly by foreign political organizations or bodies or their agents. The provisions on "aliens" and "donations from foreign organizations" as originally proposed have been deleted. I welcome this new amendment because this will be more in line with the actual situation of Hong Kong and will also be more practicable in terms of law enforcement.

As Taiwan is a part of China, it is also appropriate to put in place a separate provision prohibiting financial contributions from political organizations of Taiwan.

In the Public Order (Amendment) Bill 1997, "national security" is defined as "the safeguarding of the territorial integrity and political independence of the People's Republic of China". I support this definition which is more concise and more concrete. It is understandable that some people may worry that the concept is open to abuse. However, it is the Administration's guidelines to the Commissioner of Police may perhaps help allay such worries.

I have consulted some professional bodies on this issue, and they all view that the Public Order Ordinance and the Societies Ordinance if eventually amended can keep in line with the actual situation of the community of Hong Kong, and safeguard the civil rights of all sectors. As such, this amendment exercise will contribute to the stable development of the future SAR, and bring about continued enhancement of living standard and sustained prosperity to the people.

With these remarks, I support the Public Order (Amendment) Bill 1997 and the Societies (Amendment) Bill 1997.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Eric LI.

MR ERIC LI (in Cantonese): Madam President, some people believe that it is not necessary to introduce the legislative amendments now in question and that the relevant laws of Hong Kong as they now stand have already struck a right balance between civil rights and police authority. A few months ago, I held the same opinion. However, since the Preparatory Committee decided not to adopt these laws, the necessity of amending these laws subsequently became undisputable because of the legal vacuum bound to result. As a member of the Preparatory Committee, although I held different opinions, I found myself bound by collective responsibility to take part in the necessary amendment work. Today, however, I want to state my genuine and voluntary support for these two amendment Bills. Although I did make many requests for improvements to the two Bills during the consultation period, the entire consultation process from its start to this very day has deeply convinced me that the Chief Executive's Office is sincere in making amendments to the relevant laws. In order to safeguard the stability of Hong Kong, and in order to cope well with the new political situation following the handover, the Chief Executive's Office wants to strike a new balance between human rights and police authority. Thus, with these two new considerations in mind, the Office has in fact struck a new balance between civil rights and police authority with maximum latitude. In particular, I have to point out that there is only a very small difference between the proposed procedures and those under the existing laws. Indeed, the existing laws are totally consistent with international covenants on human rights and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, and compared with similar laws in other countries, the laws of Hong Kong are also on par with international standards. Some people claim that any attempts to amend these laws will be tantamount to a deprevation of human rights and a retrogression of freedoms. In my opinion, however, these are allegations without any legal grounds and are nothing but demagogy aiming at thwarting a pragmatic legislative amendment process by exaggerating the effect of the amendments concerned. I think that since the new balance struck by the proposed legislative amendments is not different from the original balance by any great margain, they can be accepted. That I support Mr Bruce LIU's amendments does not mean that I find any defects with the principles underlying the existing legislation. However, the aspirations of the Hong Kong people will be met more adequately if as much latitude as possible is allowed under the laws.

I will support these two amendment Bills. Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Kennedy WONG.

MR KENNEDY WONG (in Cantonese): Madam President, pursuant to the resolution reached by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress that some major amendments made by the British Hong Kong Administration to the Public Order Ordinance and the Societies Ordinance shall not be adopted as part of the laws of the future SAR, the Chief Executive's Office started an extensive consultation exercise in April this year. Today, after this extensive consultation exercise, the Chief Executive's Office has put before this Council the Public Order (Amendment) Bill 1997 and the Societies (Amendment) Bill 1997. While I think that the provisions of these two Bills are more on the side of providing latitude, I must still point out that some major provisions must be enforced with extreme caution.

First, the concept of "national security" is now defined as "the safeguarding of the territorial integrity and political independence of the People's Republic of China". The Chief Executive's Office has stated that following the passage of the Bills, it will issue a set of administrative guidelines to the Commissioner of Police for the purpose of specifying that "national security" should be applied in line with the requirements of a democratic society. I think the concept of "national security "as defined just now must be applied in a very cautious manner. I hope that the Chief Executive's Office will consult the public before drawing up the guidelines. What is more, I hope that it will adopt an open-minded attitude in order to strike a reasonable balance for the people's freedom of expression and to reflect the spirit that the SAR is a democratic society.

Regarding Mr Bruce LIU's amendments, in particular, those parts on prohibiting local political organizations from establishing connections with and accepting contributions from foreign political organizations, I maintain that the SAR should be allowed to exercise a high degree of autonomy. Article 22 of the Basic Law provides that no department of the Central People's Government and no province, or municipality directly under the Central Government may interfere in the affairs of the SAR. Therefore, I think that the SAR Government should not be open to influence and control by political organizations outside Hong Kong.

I support Mr Bruce LIU's amendments. These are my remarks.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Frederick FUNG.

MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Thank you, Madam President. I would like to speak on the Societies (Amendment) Bill and the Public Order (Amendment) Bill from the perspectives of broad, general principles. Later on, Mr Bruce LIU will speak on the more specific issues or amendments relating to these two Bills on behalf of the Hong Kong Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood (ADPL).

First of all, two important concepts are found in the title of the Consultation Document published by the Chief Executive's Office: civil liberties and social order. These two terms are different in terms of the values which they stand for. Civil liberties refer to the rights enjoyed by the citizens of a place. By social order, it is meant that rules regarding the operation of a community should be laid down in the hope that people will abide by them to enable society to function smoothly. The rules on social order should serve the people, not the other way round. Second, in order to enable society to function smoothly, rules should be laid down on the condition that basic civil rights will not be undermined, restricted or adversely affected. From this, I can infer that civil liberties and social order are of different ranking and priority. My own value judgment is that civil liberties should rank higher than and precede social order. But, as I notice from the ongoing discussions, Members seem to be downgrading or lowering the priority of civil liberties which should otherwise be accorded a higher ranking or priority, because they have been laying emphasis on how to strike a balance between civil liberties and social order. To put it in another way, they are trying to elevate social order to the level of basic civil rights, or they are simply trying to put rules and rights on the same footing. I think that the fundamental bone of contention actually involves these questions: Rights and rules, which should have priority? Rights and rules, which should have a higher ranking? Let me try to justify my aforesaid argument by referring to the Basic Law. In Chapter III of the Basic Law ─ Fundamental Rights and Duties of the Residents, there are two articles on civil rights, or freedom of assembly and of procession. They are Articles 27 and 39. Article 27 provides that "Hong Kong residents shall have freedom of speech, of the press and of publication; freedom of association, of assembly, of procession and of demonstration; and the right and freedom to form and join trade unions, and to strike." And, in brief, Article 39 provides that the two international covenants "and international labour conventions as applied to Hong Kong shall remain in force and shall be implemented through the laws of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region". This part is on the rights of the people, and is followed by the rules: "The rights and freedoms enjoyed by Hong Kong residents shall not be restricted unless as prescribed by law. Such restrictions shall not contravene the provisions of the preceding paragraph of this Article." This means that the first part of Article 39 shall not be contravened. Thus it can be seen that the rationale behind the Chapter arrangement of the Basic Law. As I understand it, the part that comes first in an Article is deemed to be higher in priority and relates more to underlying principles. Usually, the first Article of a Chapter sets out the principle of that chapter. For example, in Chapter II ─ Relationship between the Central Authorities and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the principle of a high degree of autonomy for Hong Kong is introduced before everything else, and the various parameters of such a high degree of autonomy are set out only in the following Articles. It can thus be seen that the first Article of this Chapter sets out the general principle, and that the earlier an Article appears in a Chapter, the more important it is. If we look at the Basic Law from this perspective, it can be concluded that since Article 27 appears before Article 39, their relative priority and ranking are obvious. For these reasons, if we set off to strike a balance, we will in fact reverse the correct priority and ranking. This is both inappropriate and unacceptable as a matter of principle.

Second, let me cite an example to illustrate my point. If I want to go out, I will usually tell my wife. Sometimes, I need not tell her why I am going out. Children as small as five or six years old will not dare to go out unless they are permitted or even accompanied by their parents. But, for children aged 18 or above, most of them will not bother to tell their parents, and those who bother to say "Dad, I am going out now!" can already be regarded as quite well-behaved. If going out is one's right, then giving a notice will be an act of informing the respected controlling authority that one is going to exercise one's right. Such an analogy illustrates that the essence of a notice is to inform the controlling authority of one's intended actions. And, once the controlling authority is informed that what a person is going to do, instead of involving himself alone, will involve 30, 50 or even 100 people going out to the street together, he will have to assess whether the intended actions may affect the other people's freedoms. The authority should then make necessary arrangements and rules in order to ensure that a person's action of going out to the street will not affect others' going out or their rights. In other words, the authority should start his consideration on the basis of this premise: "You have the right to go out, but ......", following which arrangements should be made to prevent one's going out to the street from affecting others. This sequence of consideration should not be reversed by saying, "You can go out, but I have to check whether others will be affected. If others are to be affected, you cannot go out." This is the crux of the controversy surrounding the Bill. This is the first point I want to raise. The second point concerns the issue of control. It was earlier mentioned that the maintenance of social order would entail a certain degree of control by way of rules. Apart from the Public Order Ordinance and the Societies ordinance, the police can invoke many other ordinances to achieve efficient control. Even if a crowd of people have to go out and their actions will lead to social disorder, there are many other ways to effect control. The authorities can invoke traffic legislation, for example. If violence occurs, even criminal laws can be invoked. The Public Order Ordinance and the Societies Ordinance are not the only alternatives. On the basis of what I have just said about the difference in ranking and priority, I think we should uphold civil rights and civil liberties, and put them above and before social order.

Finally, I would like to explain how I perceive the resolution of the Preparatory Committee. The Preparatory Committee did recommend that the respective Ordinances should be repealed, but it did not indicate whether or how it should be amended. In other words, the Committee's objection is confined to the most important parts of the Ordinances. In this connection, I remember that after the Preparatory Committee had made its decision, a chief office-bearer of its Secretariat who attended a press conference was asked, "Following the repeal of the Ordinances, if the Provisional Legislative Council wants to make amendments, can it do so just by amending the text of the original Ordinances?" The office-bearer replied, "We have no recommendations on this. It suffices to say that the power will rest with the SAR Government." That being the case, even if we amend the bill, or even if we simply amend the text of the original Ordinances, I cannot see how we will violate the resolution of the Preparatory Committee. The only important point to bear in mind is that the Preparatory Committee has only ruled that the important parts of the Ordinances are not appropriate, but has not indicated which parts are considered important. What is more, the so-called important parts may involve many areas. Many parts of the Bills presented by the Chief Executive's Office are the same as the existing Ordinances. So, I think that amending the Bills will not contravene the Preparatory Committee's recommendation.

Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Choi-hi.

MR CHAN CHOI-HI (in Cantonese): Thank you, Madam President. If Members have been following some opinion polls, they will notice that the confidence index of Hong Kong has shown signs of a decline after the Chief Executive's Office introduced the Societies (Amendment) Bill 1997 and the Public Order (Amendment) Bill 1997. Obviously, the public do have worries and anxieties about these two Bills. Many people have asked me, "What do the people worry about? What do they fear?". In fact, the worries of the Hong Kong people lie exactly in the question of priority mentioned by Mr Frederick FUNG. In recent years, there have not been any serious social unrests. Although more than 700 processions and demonstrations were held last year, and there were upwards of 300 to 400 such activities in the year before last, which one of them has led to any serious outbreak of violence or has seriously jeopardized the national security of our State? I do not see any at all. People may well point to one or two serious incidents in the past. But these cases are either being dealt with or have already been settled under the existing laws. I think that introducing the concept of "national security" is just like a hovering sabre above the freedoms and democracy enjoyed by the people. Though it may or may not be used to curtail the extent of freedoms and democracy, I still insist that it is a rather dangerous weapon, the presence of which is not warranted. I suggest that the definition of "national security" should be changed to read as "the protection of the People's Republic of China from external military intervention and threat". This definition can enable the Chief Executive's Office to achieve its goal after Hong Kong has been returned to China. I think that "territorial integrity" and "independence" are rather vague, and I hope that a more precise definition with greater clarify can be drawn up, for we the Hong Kong people do need the defence provided by such a definition. So, I will support Mr Bruce LIU's amendment on incorporating the concept of "outside Hong Kong". I very much agree, as some Members have said on some occasions, that the political progress of China may, to a certain extent, overtake that of Hong Kong. It is possible that the democratic development of China or even the political organizations which emerge in China may one day influence Hong Kong rather than the other way round. So, I think that we should now start to prepare for this. It is therefore more appropriate to amend the relevant provision of the Societies Ordinance so as to change the focus to "political organizations outside Hong Kong". In the final stage of the transition before the handover, the Hong Kong people should be trusted because the Hong Kong people love peace and will not take any drastic actions to affect our economic prosperity.

Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TAM Yiu-chung.

MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Thank you, Madam President. At first, I did not intend to speak because I did not think that the views of Mr Frederick FUNG and Mr CHAN Choi-hi should merit so much attention. But, having listened to them, I feel compelled to say something and, so, I now want to make a brief response. Just now, they queried, "Since there have not been any serious incidents arising from processions and the like, why should we legislate on this issue?" Regarding this query, I would say that the enactment of and amendment to any legislation should serve a preventive purpose, in addition to providing a set of sensible guidelines for observance by the community and members of the public. From this perspective, the enactment of the legislation concerned is entirely necessary. Besides, it is inappropriate, I believe, to compare the amendments concerned to a sabre. To describe the amendments as a sabre will mislead and threaten the general public who are not well-informed on the issue, because the amendments are not of this nature in reality. Since a sabre can be used to kill, it is inappropriate to describe the amendments as a sabre. After all, even when the amendments concerned are implemented, the penalties for the offences involved will be quite limited.

Besides, when Mr Frederick FUNG talked about the notification system and the issue of Notice of No Objection relating to processions, he compared the whole matter to the case of parental control, whereby children have to tell their parents before they go out. In my opinion, he may not be adequately experienced as a parent because his children are still very small. When his children grow up, perhaps he will start to worry and he may realize that the matter is not as simple as "Just tell me, and you can go out". If his children are well-disciplined, there may not be any problems. But, if they are given to some bad habits, of if they are under undesirable peer influences, I think Mr FUNG will be much more cautious about his children. So, the cases of parental control and the legislation concerned are two different matters, because what the legislation involves is the management of the whole society, the maintenance of better social order. Social order is meant for the protection of each and every one of us, and if social order is upset, it will not be possible for us to exercise our civil rights. So, I feel that civil liberties and social order are closely related on an equal footing. To argue that civil liberties should precede social order or vice versa is, I think, inappropriate.

Moreover, Mr Frederick FUNG also attempted to explain how he perceived the rationale behind the ordering of the Articles in Chapter III of the Basic Law. I took part in the drafting of the Basic Law. Regarding Chapter III ─ Fundamental Rights and Duties of the Residents, I do not agree that the Articles which appear earlier are important, and those which appear later are not. The Articles must be arranged in a certain order because there are as many as 160 Articles in the Basic Law. If they were not arranged in a certain order, how could we possibly proceed with the drafting work? As far as the protection of civil liberties is concerned, in drafting Chapter III, we sought to incorporate in it all the rights and freedoms mentioned in the Sino-British Joint Declaration; and, we also incorporated in this Chapter all those rights and freedoms demanded by the public during the Basic Law drafting period, even though they were not mentioned in the Sino-British Joint Declaration. Having incorporated these rights and freedoms in the Basic Law, we still wanted to put in place a mechanism to ensure their implementation. In other words, we wanted to make sure that even if the administration or the SAR Government attempts to impose restrictions on these rights and freedoms, it still has to comply with the law, that is, to go through the legislative process. With this mechanism, even if the executive departments of the SAR Government ignore the people's opinions or adopt unreasonable measures, checks and balances can still be imposed by a legislature returned by elections. What is more, the Basic Law also sets out a guideline for the administration or the legislature on the enactment of the relevant laws. This guideline is embodied in the stipulation that the two international covenants on human rights as applied to Hong Kong shall not be contravened. That being the case, I think that the spirit underlying the drafting of Chapter III is not only to codify rights and freedoms in the Basic Law, but also to set up a mechanism to safeguard them. This mechanism includes an elected legislature and the two international covenants on human rights referred to in Article 39. So, I do not think that the positioning of a certain Article can actually represent its importance. Such an interpretation is not in line with the spirit of drafting the Basic Law, and the provisions contained in it.

With these remarks, I support the Bills proposed by the SAR Government.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHIM Pui-chung.

MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, what we discuss and debate today is the Public Order Ordinance, and the same topic was also debated in the Legislative Council before. In the Legislative Council, I once said that many newspapers and the media dismissed our discussion on this topic as an attempt to "reinstate draconian laws". However, up to now, as far as members of the public can observe, what draconian laws have we reinstated? The media have been proven wrong in their reports; but, why have they refrained from making an open apology? From this absence of an apology, we can infer that some political figures or some people holding power in the past have made use of this issue to attack the Provisional Legislature Council, to show their lack of confidence in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government, and to arouse uncertainties in society. The general public can be forgiven for that. But as Members of the Provisional Legislative Council, we should be criticized for making such misleading statements.

Second, we are discussing police authority. Mr SZETO Wah once said at the City Forum, "I have no fear. We will not cease fighting. But we are worried that the people behind us will attack us." From this, we can see that the people taking part in public processions over the past few years have in fact infringed upon the rights of the majority, only that the latter have been forced by the political realities to put up with them. After the handover of sovereignty in 1997, will the people of Hong Kong continue to put up with them? I can say with certainty, "Absolutely not." After the handover, when some people want to organize confrontational processions, some other people who love both the State and Hong Kong may organize similar activities in retaliation. If that is the case, the community will face great turbulence. As legislators, we should grasp such a possible scenario well in advance and with greater clarity. It is, therefore, necessary to give the police some discretionary powers to act according to the situation.

Third, Madam President, we know who have legislative power. Some people holding power now will soon become history. We firmly believe that as Members of the Provisional Legislative Council, we will be led by our political conscience and seek to set up a perfect system for both Hong Kong and China. We understand that Hong Kong is a British colony and the Hong Kong people thus do not have any national sentiments. But in the future, we will come under our own Central Government. So, why should we be led blindly by others? We absolutely support human rights and absolutely support international laws. But we do also have to maintain the uniqueness of our own place.

Fourth, Madam President, some political figures have tried to cover up their own erroneous judgement by laying the blame on others. It is very dangerous, for this is simply political hysteria. Let me now remind some people that as politicians and participants in politics, they must absolutely be guided by their own conscience and a sense of responsibility, and they must face up to the consequences of their own voting decisions. They must not lay the blame on others. If they continue to do so, I believe that the voters will eventually refuse to support their views. As we move closer to the handover in 1997, I hope that all the people of Hong Kong and Members of the Provisional Legislative Council will remain committed to our social responsibilities, especially in the aspect of law-making.

These are my remarks. Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Bruce LIU.

MR BRUCE LIU (in Cantonese): Madam President, I would like to speak on the Societies Ordinance. Since I have reached an agreement with Mr CHAN Choi-hi, I have confined my amendments to the Societies Ordinance. Hong Kong residents are entitled to freedom of association, and this is clearly stipulated in Article 27 of the Basic Law. This is one of our constitutional rights, the exercise of which should not be subject to any unreasonable restrictions. In other words, what we should first affirm is our entitlement to this right. Following this, however, we may then agree to the need for some restrictions, provided that such restrictions are not unreasonable in nature, and must comply with the international covenants on human rights as applied to Hong Kong and the principles which we have been upholding. This is why during the last debate, I recommended my "three-in-one" principle on "common sense, legality and reasonableness".

Following the last debate, and during the period covering the release of the Consultation Document, the conduct of the consultation exercise and the submission of the Bills, the Chief Executive's Office of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) has listened to many opinions and has made many amendments, among which 11 are major amendments. This is a kind of progress which must be recognized by us. But some of these amendments, in my opinion, still fail to comply with the "three-in-one" principle which I mentioned. So I would like to propose three amendments today. These three amendments seek to tackle three issues which in fact have been surrounding the scrutiny of the Bill. The first issue concerns the resolution by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPC) that some parts of the existing Societies Ordinance, in particular, the major amendments, would not be adopted. According to the NPC, these major amendments do not conform to the Basic Law and Sino-British Joint Declaration. As a result, they simply cannot comply with the NPC's decision and will lead to a legal vacuum which must be filled. The second issue concerns the fact that this time round we are not simply trying to deal with the existing Ordinances, but also seek to introduce some new restrictions. One of these restrictions concerns the ways in which we can prevent foreign political parties or bodies from interfering with or controlling Hong Kong political parties. The third issue concerns whether or not the operation of societies will threaten national security. In other words, the concept of national security is introduced.

Regarding the first issue, it would be most appropriate to focus our discussion on the NPC's resolution regarding the registration of societies. The NPC's decision does not state specifically which parts of the existing Societies Ordinance should be regarded as major amendments. When the Bill was under scrutiny, members of the Bills Committee did raise this question. I proposed to the Chief Executive's Office that the notification system under the existing Societies Ordinance should be retained without any changes. At the same time, I also asked whether the NPC's decision would be complied with if we did not change to a registration system. The Chief Executive's Office replied that preserving the existing notification system would not be consistent with the NPC's decision, and it should not be retained. Out of my respect for the law, I can no longer propose any amendments. That being the case, how should we tackle the matter? Let me first clarify my position. I support the adoption of a notification system. My understanding is that we can enjoy freedom of assembly and of association provided that we comply with relevant (but not unreasonable) statutory requirements of the law. That being the case, we should be free to form any associations we like, and the only reasonable restriction we need to obey is to notify the Societies Officer. In the past, this practice functioned well in Hong Kong without any problems. Afterall, in case the operation of a society is not in the interest of public security and public order, the Government will still have sufficient powers to prohibit its functioning. In these circumstances, I have no alternative but to devise a mechanism which is more conducive to freedom of association. In my opinion, a mechanism of automatic exemption is appropriate. Under some circumstances, a registration system may become an inappropriate device which will give unnecessary troubles to the public. For instance, a sports body like a basketball team with some 10 players, as proposed in the Bill, has to apply for registration or exemption from registration within one month of its formation; failure to do so will constitute an offence. Another example is a self-help group in a youth centre. It will have commited an offence under the proposed legislation if it fails to give notice after it has functioned for more than one month. Just now, Mr HUI Yin-fat has also mentioned that, in the opinion of social work professionals and the Hong Kong Council of Social Service, separate treatment is required under such circumstances. Yet another example is a Bible Study Group consisting of more than 10 people. It has to register if it has functioned for more than a month. But usually they do not do so. To make it compulsory for such societies to apply for registration or exemption from registration may as well make the laws of Hong Kong appear ridiculous. The best way to avoid causing any unnecessary troubles to the public is automatic exemption. Any society which is formed solely for religious, charitable, social or recreational purposes and which consists of less than 30 people should be exempted from registration. And, in case a society for such sole purposes consists of more than 30 people, it may apply for exemption from registration. This is the intent of the law. Just now, the Honourable Maria TAM said that an automatic exemption mechanism would run counter to the intent this legislative exercise, which should only involve the introduction of a registration system in the absence of a notification system. As a result, she said that we would be doing more than what we should do if we adopted an exemption mechanism alongside a registration system. But, the fact remains, as far as the Societies (Amendment) Bill 1997 is concerned, we are simply not dealing with the problems arising from the repeal of some major amendments, for there are also the concept of "national security" and the discussions on the prevention of foreign interference and control. So, the key issue is not whether any new issues have been raised, but whether or not such new issues are relevant. This will need Members' judgement. Regarding this point, I would like to thank Mr HUI Yin-fat for the support expressed in his speech.

The second issue concerns the possibility of foreign political bodies seeking to intervene in or control the management of local political parties. In this aspect, what we have to deal with is the issue of "one country, two systems". Of course, from the perspective of "one country", mainland China would likely to have connections with Hong Kong, and we should not legislate to sever such connections. Such was a very strong argument put forward by many Members just now. Let me now state my response to this argument. First, according to Article 22 of the Basic Law, the Central Government and the various provinces and municipalities are not allowed to interfere in the affairs which the SAR administers on its own. So, even if we do not enact this piece of legislation today, restrictions and rules are already found in the Basic Law. However, if we enact a piece of legislation for this purpose, our relationship with the Mainland will be specified more clearly. Then, some Members cautioned that our participation in the NPC and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference was also a kind of connection, and this connection should not be severed. On this point, let me draw Members' attention to the wording of the proposed legislation so that they can see what the definition of "connection" is. As defined in the proposed legislation, "connection" is not equivalent to "interchanges" and "participation". We seek to prevent foreign political bodies from intervening in and controlling the affairs of Hong Kong. In other words, the question is on "intervention" and "control". So, what is covered by this definition is that, during the decision-making process of local political parties, influences from foreign political bodies must be prohibited, one example being donations from foreign organizations must be rejected; and the definition is very clear in this respect. So, participation or interchanges are not regarded as "connection" under the proposed definition. The case cited by Mr CHAN Choi-hi can aptly illustrate this point. In mainland China, the Communist Party is not the only political body or party. Other political bodies are found in different provinces or municipalities. So, for instance, if Tibetan separatists or any similar organizations give donations to local political parties, what will be the legal consequences? According to existing laws, such donations do not constitute an offence. Of course, if provinces or cities cannot interfere in Hong Kong affairs but political parties can, there is indeed a loophole in the law. If we intend to impose restrictions solely on foreign organizations, then we should not impose restrictions on Taiwan because Taiwan is not a foreign country. But, if we impose restrictions on Taiwan out of a fear that Taiwan may also exert influence or control on Hong Kong, we should also impose restrictions on mainland China for the sake of uniform treatment.

Here, I should like to respond to Members' opinions on this particular point. The Honourable IP Kwok-him said that, on the issue of foreign intervention, he did have some worries at the beginning, thinking that restrictions should be extended to all organizations outside Hong Kong. But then, he went on to say that when he saw that Taiwan would be dealt with under separate provisions, he no longer had any more worries. However, two days ago, I received a newsletter of the Democratic Alliance for Betterment of Hong Kong in which the "Consultation Document on Civil Liberties and Social Order " was discussed. The newsletter expressed a position which is different from that stated by Mr IP just now: "The provision on foreign connections should be amended to cover all political organizations outside Hong Kong, including mainland China and Taiwan." If he has somehow decided to deviate from his Party's stance, I think he really owes his fellow party members an explanation. Still on the point of foreign intervention, let me respond to what I have read from a newspaper. The newspaper reported that the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) said that the Communist Party should also be prohibited from intervening in the affairs of Hong Kong. If the intervention referred to by the FTU is the same as the "intervention" defined in the proposed legislation ─ not connections or interchanges, or the intervention mentioned in the Basic Law, I think the FTU should support my proposed amendments today. I am grateful to Mr Kennedy WONG. I have read his article in Ming Pao in which he indicated that he agreed to the adoption of a definition embracing the concept of "outside Hong Kong".

The third issue is on the question of national security. We have to strengthen the relevant restrictions so as to ensure that the operation of societies will not affect the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of China. When this issue was first discussed, many people opposed the restrictions concerned. Later, they came to understand that since Hong Kong would become a part of China, such a concept would be necessary. According to a survey conducted by the Hong Kong Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood, if this concept is included without a clear definition, 50% of the interviewees would render support and 50% would voice opposition. If, however, there is a clear definition of this concept, 70% of the interviewees would render strong support. Our proposed definition seeks to stipulate that the Government should be allowed to prohibit the operation of societies when the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the People's Republic of China is endangered. What I am trying to do is to define this concept more clearly, and I hope that Members will support my amendment. My amendment is also in line with the intention of the Chief Executive's Office which considers that the first and foremost principle is to protect the territorial integrity of China and to guard it against any danger. We therefore propose that this concept has to be defined clearly. The wording of my amendment is in fact supported and produced by a group of law professors of the University of Hong Kong. I hope Members will support my amendments.

Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mrs Elsie TU.

MRS ELSIE TU: Madam President, it was not my intention to speak this morning. But, after hearing the Honourable Frederick FUNG's speech, I am afraid I have to say something to challenge him. I believe in maintaining a balance between civil liberties and social order ─ it must be maintained. There must be a balance ─ Mr FUNG has suggested that civil liberties must have priority over social order. For this, I just cannot accept. Deprivation of civil liberties might cause disorder, I agree. On the other hand, if we put civil liberties first, that will certainly lead to anarchy and social disorder. For example, if we allow people to have freedom of speech on individual basis at the time they like, we will not be able to hold a meeting like this. They will just walk in and take their civil liberties and we will not be able to operate. It will be ridiculous to imagine that civil liberties should come before social order. They must work hand in hand. One must control and balance the other.

Now concerning what the Honourable Bruce LIU has just said, I do not follow. I do not agree with any of his amendments except I have a little sympathy with him about the donations. I have in my bookshelf a book named The Buying of the President. That book shows how every governor or almost every governor and president of the United States has been a kind of brought over by influence peddling and therefore I think it is dangerous to accept donations no matter whether they come from another country or even they come from Hong Kong. If they come from organizations, how could you free yourself from the possibility of being influenced on some matters by those donations. I am not going to propose any amendments to suggest that we should not have any donations from Hong Kong organizations, but I would hope in future that we will not see that such donations can lead to influence peddling and interference in democracy. Democracy is for the people. It is not for organizations which pay donations. But I do support him that we should not allow donations from any other places except Hong Kong.

Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? Mr TSANG Yok-sing.

MR TSANG YOK-SING (in Cantonese): Madam President, Mr Frederick FUNG has given a very detailed account of the difference in priority and ranking between civil liberties and social order, and he concluded that we should not talk about the striking of "a balance". That surprises me, because even if there is a difference in priority between the two, I believe that most Members will still think that it is necessary to consider the issue of striking "a balance". The reason is very simple. If some people impede or even undermine social order when exercising their civil liberties, other citizens will be disabled from exercising their civil liberties. Therefore, even if we really consider that civil liberties should enjoy a higher and more important position than everything else, a balance between civil liberties and social order must still be struck. Mr FUNG said that children who have come of age need only to tell their parents before they go out. But, if these children tell their parents that they will invite two dozen friends to have an overnight "karaoke party" at home, I believe that they should still ask for consent from the rest of the family.

Let me respond to Mr Bruce LIU's remarks on the comments made by Mr IP Kwok-him, who discussed whether the proposal of the Chief Executive's Office or the concept of "outside Hong Kong" should be applied to define foreign political bodies or organizations. It is true that members of the Democratic Alliance for Betterment of Hong Kong in the past did consider that the part on Taiwan in the Consultation Document was open to question. That is why we suggested the adoption of the concept of "outside Hong Kong". But, the Chief Executive's Office has subsequently given a more detailed explanation on this point. As Mr Bruce LIU has said, Article 23 of the Basic Law provides that the SAR shall enact laws on its own to prohibit ties between political organizations or bodies of the Region and their foreign counterparts. This prohibition is imposed out of the need to safeguard national security. The Chief Executive's Office explains that the concept of "national security" actually stems from the concept of "one country". This means that Hong Kong, as a SAR of the People's Republic of China, must refrain from establishing ties with alien political bodies or any such bodies outside Hong Kong for the sake of safeguarding the sovereignty of the State, and of upholding the principle of "one country". Should any mainland political bodies or forces from elsewhere in China but outside Hong Kong attempt to violate the principle of "two systems" by controlling political bodies of Hong Kong, they are in fact breaking the Basic Law, and such actions are strictly prohibited under the Basic Law. Therefore, regarding these two distinct issues, we believe that the present proposal is reasonable, because it is line with the principle of "one country, two systems" to accord separate treatment to Taiwan and foreign political organizations on the one hand, and those of mainland China on the other.

Madam President, I so submit. Thank you.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? Mr CHENG Yiu-tong.

MR CHENG YIU-TONG (in Cantonese): Madam President, our debate today is on the Public Order Ordinance and the Societies Ordinances, and particular attention is paid to the need for prohibiting political bodies or organizations of Hong Kong from accepting foreign political contributions and establishing ties with foreign political bodies or organizations. This prohibition is necessitated by the need to prevent foreign political organizations from upsetting the principle of "one country, two systems" and Hong Kong politics through local political organizations. To include such a provision in the Societies Ordinance is therefore in line with the Basic Law. This will prevent foreign forces from using Hong Kong as a base to conduct activities against China, and will also prevent political organizations of Hong Kong from being manipulated by foreign forces, thus avoiding any adverse influences on the implementation of "one country, two systems".

Concerning this issue, some Members requested to change the relevant provisions of the Ordinance by adding the words "outside Hong Kong". This change, I think, is unnecessary because in so doing, we will impose an indirect legislative restriction which prohibits our sovereign power from discharging its responsibilities towards Hong Kong. Since the principle of "one country, two systems" is initiated by the Chinese Government, we believe that the Chinese Government or the ruling party of the People's Republic of China, that is, the Communist Party of China, will be committed to the implementation of a separate Hong Kong system under this principle. I am convinced that the Chinese Government will not change this policy. Using the term "outside Hong Kong" will in effect impose an unnecessary legislative restriction. Mr Bruce LIU referred to the views of the Federation of the Trade Unions (FTU) a moment ago. In response to his comments, let me quote the exact wording of the FTU's position: "We think that foreign political connections should be defined as political connections with places outside China." This does conform with the spirit of Article 23 of the Basic Law. Although Taiwan is an inalienable part of China, owing to historical and political realities, the restriction concerned should also apply to Taiwan. But, a separate provision must be drawn up for Taiwan to uphold the principle of "One China". Hence, I support the amendments to the Societies Ordinance and Public Order Ordinance as proposed by the Chief Executive's Office.

Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung.

MR YEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, for the debate on the two Ordinances today, I think that the most crucial arguments actually relate to the introduction and definition of the concept of "national security". For me, I would say that the incorporation of the concept of "national security" in the Public Order Ordinance and the Societies Ordinance is a necessary action, which is legal, sensible and reasonable. It is legal because the incorporation of the concept of "national security" is perfectly in line with the Basic Law and the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and political Rights (ICCPR) as applied to Hong Kong. It is sensible and reasonable because the incorporation of the concept of "national security" is perfectly justified and natural. Being part of China, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) has the natural responsibility and obligation to safeguard the security and interests of the State, as an embodiment of the concept of "one country". If Hong Kong is turned into a base for foreign political forces to subvert China, its prosperity and stability will definitely be jeopardized much to the detriment of the successful implementation of the principle of "one country, two systems". In the end, it is Hong Kong itself which will suffer.

The Bill expressly defines that "national security" is "the safeguarding of the territorial integrity and the independence of the People's Republic of China". Mr CHAN Choi-hi suggests to adopt a stricter and narrower definition of "national security" by replacing the original definition with "the protection of the People's Republic of China from external military intervention and threat". In other words, the criteria he sets for national security is whether or not the country is under military attack or a threat of possible military attack.

I think that the factors which are prejudicial to the territorial integrity and independence of a country are not confined to military intervention and threat; non-military means such as public opinions, propaganda and instigation can all jeopardize a country's territorial integrity and independence. The manipulation of public opinions is often the first step taken to topple a regime. There have been numerous examples of this in modern and ancient times, in China or elsewhere.

Some people worry that the introduction of the concept of "national security" will lead to "witch-hunting" and therefore suppression of free speech. In fact, this kind of worries is totally unfounded. This is because, to decide whether an action is prejudicial to national security, one has to examine the motive behind the action and its actual effects. In other words, one has to examine whether the action is taken with the intent of causing actual damage to the territorial integrity and independence of the State. At the same time, by legislating on "national security", the SAR Government also aims to send out an unambiguous message to the people of Hong Kong and the international community that it will not allow any activities in Hong Kong to jeopardize the fundamental interests of China. We cannot argue that if we restrict the freedom which jeopardizes "national security" we will be restricting freedom of speech because we will not be affected if we have no intent of secession. So, why fear?

Some people have adopted an extremely difficult and resistent attitude towards the concept of "national security; this is simply not an appropriate attitude. These people first question why the concept has to be introduced. When they are told that the concept has always been found in the laws of Hong Kong and can be traced back to the ICCPR, they then challenge the definition of "national security". When they are offered a clear definition, they raise worries about unfair interpretation. When they are told that there is an appeal mechanism as a guarantee, then they go so far as to question the appeal mechanism itself. These people come up with a new excuse each time when they are beaten by strong justifications. In the end, they have no alternative but to resort to sophistry. The question is that they simply do not trust the SAR Government. But, before there is any empirical evidence, they should not allow themselves to be biased by any preconceptions that the SAR Government will be unjust and not trustworthy. They should not challenge the definition of "national security" by asking hypothetical questions. If they insist on doing so, they are either too hasty in reaching conclusions, or they have ulterior motives.

With these remarks, I support the Public Order (Amendment) Bill 1997 and the Societies (Amendment) Bill 1997 as proposed by the SAR Chief Executive's Office.

Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr TANG Siu-tong.

DR TANG SIU-TONG (in Cantonese): Madam President, I would like to express some views on the Societies (Amendment) Bill 1997 on behalf of the Hong Kong Progressive Alliance.

The most important purpose for the Chief Executive's Office to re-enact the Societies Ordinance and the Public Order Ordinance is to fill the legal vacuum. We cannot overlook the fact that the Public Order Ordinance and the Societies Ordinance are laws absolutely indispensable upon the establishment of the SAR. As a responsible government, the Chief Executive's Office needs to take remedial measures for the laws discarded by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. The Administration of the SAR has not repealed any laws; nor has it sought to reinstate any draconian laws. Rather, it is just setting the legislative process in motion for those laws which are absolutely indispensable upon the establishment of the SAR. This is an important principle and rationale underlying the submission of the Bills to the Provisional Legislative Council by the Chief Executive's Office. This is also the main reason why the enactment of the these two Ordinances cannot be deferred until after the establishment of the first Legislative Council.

At the same time, we all know that the relationship between Hong Kong and Britain on the one hand, and that between Hong Kong and the Mainland on the other, are totally different in nature. Apart from its proximity to China, Hong Kong is closely related to China, politically, economically and geographically. Therefore, some of the laws drawn up by the British Hong Kong Administration are not applicable to the future SAR. We do not allow foreign political forces to meddle with the affairs of Hong Kong, nor do we want to see foreign political forces trying to influence the political development and stability of mainland China through Hong Kong. In order to prevent foreign forces from meddling with the political affairs of Hong Kong and using Hong Kong as an outpost to conduct political activities against China, it has been strongly insisted that the Societies (Amendment) Bill 1997 should contain a provision to prohibit foreign forces from controlling political organizations of Hong Kong.

We are pleased with the highly receptive attitude of the Chief Executive's Office, which has led it to incorporate the concept of "agent" in the provisions, thus giving an exhaustive and complete definition to "foreign political organizations". Besides, the Chief Executive's Office has revised the definition of "ties", which now refers to "financial aid" only. The definition of "ties" has thus become clear and simple. We welcome all these changes.

The incorporation of the concept of "foreign" political organizations in the Societies (Amendment) Bill 1997 is necessitated entirely by the need to implement Article 23 of the Basic Law, which expressly states "[the prohibition of] political organizations or bodies of the Region from establishing ties with foreign political organizations or bodies". The SAR Government has to set the legislative process in motion to enact relevant laws to comply with this provision of the Basic Law.

Concerning "political organizations of Taiwan", we think that the approach of the Bill is appropriate. Taiwan and the Mainland have long been under two different administrations, and their political structures and ideologies are all very different. It is therefore both sensible and reasonable to handle "political organizations of Taiwan" under a separate provision ─ also a proposal put forward by the Hong Kong Progressive Alliance to the Chief Executive's Office before. Hence, in consideration of the relevant Basic Law provision and the political realities, we do not support Mr Bruce LIU's amendment which seeks to apply the concept of "outside Hong Kong" to handle the ties between political organizations of Hong Kong and their foreign counterparts, because this would effectively treat China as a "foreign country".

With these remarks, I support the original amendment Bills proposed by the Chief Executive's Office.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? Mr NGAI Shui-kit.

MR NGAI SHIU-KIT (in Cantonese): I raised my hand earlier to indicate my intention to speak. However, when the President invited me to speak, I felt that since so many Members wanted to speak, it would be better for me not to speak. But now, I cannot hold back any longer. I will not be theoretical, nor will I read out my prepared speech. I just want to relay what several ordinary citizens said to me. One said, "Why make such a fuss for those processions? Several times before, when I was passing by this place on my way home, it was cordoned off. They really inconvenience other pedestrians." Another said, "Oh, no! My son is not feeling well tonight, and I have to go home. But, this place is cordoned off." There have been many similar complaints. That being the case, I really want to advise the several so-called democracy "fighters" among us that they should really think carefully before they speak. Having heard such grievances, do they have any feelings? Of course, some may say, "All has been tested by time! And, after all, after so many years, these activities have become the political culture of Hong Kong. So, do not panic and do not fear!" No, there is actually no panic and no fear in the community. However, the point is that if anyone does anything to upset the normal daily lives of ordinary citizens, he or she will infringe upon their freedoms. I can recall that Governor Chris PATTEN once said to this effect in an open question session, "I do not see any problems with that! For the whole of last year, demonstrations were held in front of the New China News Agency on some 170 days only. And, despite these demonstrations, has not our community remained as peaceful as before? People just chanted slogans, and after they had left, all returned to normal." But has it ever occurred to him that last year, on these 170 days, or once every other day, the people living in the neighbourhood or those frequent passers-by were actually forced to hear the noises of slogan-chanting, or to see demonstrators lying down in the street? How long can their patience and endurance last? They do not even have the freedom of refusing to see what they do not like to see. I can recall that in a certain television interview, a person once said, "I strongly support demonstrations and processions, but I have never participated in one before. It is now the time for us to voice our views." This is right but we should listen to another person's view. "Well, there is nothing I can do. Despite my dislike, these things do happen, and I simply cannot shut my eyes and ears." I believe that the several Members who have talked about democracy and so on just now are not blind. So, why have they turned a blind eye to such comments? And, I believe these Members are not deaf either. So, why have they turned a deaf ear to such comments? These points are all I want to talk about. I do not want to be theoretical. I just want to point out that when we exercise our freedoms, we have to consider other people's freedoms at the same time.

I appreciate what Mr TSANG Yok-sing has just said. Mr Bruce LIU said, "No laws in Hong Kong can possibly prohibit Tibetan separatists from making connections with Hong Kong." In response, Mr TSANG said, "This viewpoint does not conform with the principle of "one country, two systems"." I would say that this is separatism, an issue which is more important than "national security". Why? Do we not know that Tibet is part of China? So, Mr LIU's argument is pure sophistry. I hope that Members will not pretend to be blind and deaf to the plain facts when in fact they are not. They must observe more and listen more. At the same time, I hope that Members would not pretent to be blind, or deaf in casting their votes.

Thank you.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If no more Members wish to speak, I shall invite the Secretary for Policy Co-ordination to reply. Secretary for Policy Co-ordination.

SECRETARY FOR POLICY CO-ORDINATION (in Cantonese): When this Council conducted the relevant motion debate on 10 May, and when I put before this Council this Bill and the Public Order (Amendment) Bill 1997 on 17 May, I already expounded the background, principles and main provisions of the Bills. So, I will not repeat them here. But I must stress once again that this Bill is the outcome of an extensive public consultation exercise, and with it, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government aims to strike a balance between civil liberties and social order.

The Bills Committee chaired by the Honourable Maria TAM has studied the two Bills objectively and carefully over the past few weeks, and has also put forward very valuable opinions on the fine details and wording of the Bills. I would like to take this opportunity to express my heartfelt gratitude to Miss Maria TAM and the other members of the Bills Committee. Later, at the Committee stage, I will move amendments in accordance with the recommendations of the Bills Committee. I am convinced that after the incorporation of these amendments, the provisions of the Bill will become clearer, more comprehensive, and more in line with public interests.

I turn now to the issues of concern to the Bills Committee and the amendments proposed by Mr Bruce LIU.

When the Bills Committee discussed the issue of a societies registration system, Mr Kennedy WONG and Mr CHAN Choi-hi suggested that the proposed registration system should be replaced by a records system. Mr Bruce LIU also suggested that any society formed solely for religious, charitable, social or recreational purposes which consists of not more than 30 members should be automatically exempted from registration. We are of the view that since both a records system and a registration system would require a society to submit its information to the Societies Officer, there is in fact not much practical difference between the two. If we are to regulate the operation of societies effectively, we must not introduce an automatic exemption mechanism lightly. The registration system proposed by the Bill is simple and efficient, and the procedures involved are similar to those required under the present notification system. With such a registration system, those who want to form a society will be able to consider carefully their objectives and purposes in the course of registration on the one hand, and the public will not be inconvenienced on the other.

On the issue of prohibiting political organizations of Hong Kong from establishing ties with foreign and Taiwan political organizations, Mr Bruce LIU suggested that the scope of such a prohibition should be expanded to cover all places "outside Hong Kong", including mainland China. After the changeover, Hong Kong will become an inalienable part of China, and the Mainland and the SAR will share common interests. So, in principle, there is no reason to treat the Mainland as a foreign country. Besides, it is inevitable that political connections between the Mainland and the SAR will be established. Therefore, we do not agree to the amendment of Mr Bruce LIU.

Mr Bruce LIU's amendment provides that nothing in the Societies Ordinance shall be construed in such a way as to limit or restrict the rights and freedoms provided in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) as applied to Hong Kong. Indeed, under clause 3(4), the meanings of "public safety", "public order" and "the protection of rights and freedoms of others " have already been clearly established and they are consistent with the interpretation of the ICCPR. Therefore, the Bill has already confined the definitions to the interpretation of the Covenant. We think that the wording of the present provision is already very clear and hence there needs no further amendment.

With these remarks, Madam President, I ask the Council to pass the Bill.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the Societies (Amendment) Bill 1997 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): Societies (Amendment) Bill 1997.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Public Order (Amendment) Bill 1997. Miss Maria TAM.

MISS MARIA TAM (in Cantonese): Madam President, first of all, I would like to thank all those Members who have spoken. The depth and scope of their speeches prove that when considering this controversial issue today, all of us have done our best to listen fully to the views of all sides, and Members' comments are much wider in perspective than my initial speech. Thus, I have to thank everyone first.

Regarding the Public Order (Amendment) Bill 1997, I will be brief on all the points of discussion as far as possible. These points include the background of the Bill and the definition of "national security", the views of the Bills Committee on how to deal with the guidelines which the Chief Executive's Office will issue to the Commissioner of Police in future, and the ways in which we can retain all those provisions of the existing Ordinance which, despite the amendments in 1995 and 1996, do not actually contravene the Basic Law. I have already explained these three points very clearly when I discussed the Societies (Amendment) Bill 1997 earlier. So, I will not repeat my views here.

Concerning the Public Order (Amendment) Bill 1997, I would first report on our study on civil liberties and rights, and social order.

The first point. We accept that in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, the Commissioner of Police may, in consultation with the Secretary for Security, exercise his power to prohibit a public procession for which notice has been given. But, he must exercise this power with reasonable justifications.

We have studied clause 3(2) of the Bill which seeks to amend section 6(2) of the existing Ordinance. In order to minimize the intervention in demonstrations and processions, we have suggested to the Chief Executive's Office that the phrase "to prevent an imminent threat to public safety or public order" should be restored, and this should be used as the sole justification for restricting the broadcasting of audio messages in public places.

Our second point concerns the power of the Commissioner of Police to prohibit a public assembly for which notice has been served. Section 9(4) of the existing Ordinance as amended by clause 4(2) of the Bill provides that the Commissioner of Police shall not exercise the power to prohibit notified public assemblies if he considers that the interests of national security or the interests of public safety, public order or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others could be protected by the imposition of conditions. Agreeing that this point is more reasonable, we support it.

Since clause 9(1) of the Bill provides for a standard of "reasonableness" for the Commissioner of Police in the exercise of his power, the Chief Executive's Office has agreed to our suggestion on inserting the same standard in section 9(4) of the Ordinance.

Our third point concerns the Notice of No Objection to be issued by the Commissioner of Police. If the Commissioner of Police does not object to a public procession being held, he shall notify the person who gave the notice in writing of his having no objection as soon as practicable within the stipulated time. Should the Commissioner of Police fail to do so, he will be deemed to have issued such a notice. We also support such an arrangement.

The Bills Committee is aware that clause 16 of the Bill provides for some transitional arrangements for the notification of processions and public assemblies given before 1 July. The Bills Committee is of the view that we must avoid any misconception that we are legislating before 30 June. The Chief Executive's Office has accepted our suggestion and this is reflected in the amendment.

Finally, Mr CHAN Choi-hi will move amendments to the Public Order Ordinance. I notice that he basically wants to make two points. The first concerns "national security", which he wants to re-define as "the protection of the People's Republic of China from external military intervention and threat". Since many brilliant insights have been made on this issue just now, I just want to add one more point. If we pass Mr CHAN Choi-hi's amendment, the definition of "national security" will be restricted to "external military intervention and threat". But, we have to realize that factors affecting a nation's security are not limited to external ones. I consider the amendment proposed by the Chief Executive's Office more reasonable and I hope that Members will support it. His second point concerns the issue of Notices of No Objection by the Commissioner of Police. Mr CHAN Choi-hi hopes that Notices of Prohibition should be issued instead. The Bills Committee and I think that there is in fact more latitude with the issuing of Notices of No Objection. And we also believe that this is more acceptable to the Hong Kong people, as evidenced by the absence of strong opposition since this proposal was put forth. Therefore, I hope that Members will still support the amendments put forward by the Chief Executive's Office.

To conclude, I would like to thank all the members of the Bills Committee. They have not only put in much time to participate in the debate but have made my work much easier. Thank you.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Siu-yee.

MR WONG SIU-YEE (in Cantonese): Thank you, Madam President. Originally, I had no intention of speaking on this issue, but having listened to the remarks of Mr Frederick FUNG and others, particularly those remarks concerning national security and foreign political organizations, I would like to offer some responses.

First of all, I agree to what Mr TSANG Yok-sing has just said. Here I would like to point out that we should not muddle up the legislative intent of the two Bills. First, the relationship between China and Hong Kong is governed by the State policy of "one country, two systems" and the Basic Law; and the Public Order Ordinance and the Societies Ordinance are the local laws which protect the overall interests of Hong Kong and the security of the nation. It will be very dangerous for us to muddle up the legislative intent of the two Ordinances and put forward amendments rashly. I am deeply puzzled by Mr Frederick FUNG's argument that the individual's freedom should be regarded as more important than social order. But, since many Members have refuted that, I do not wish to repeat the views here. But, I must point out that we must neither interpret freedom all too freely nor regard freedom as our sole property, for, let me quote Madame RONALD again, "O liberty! What crimes are committed in thy name!" The Alliance of Democracy and People's Livelihood (ADPL) should have learned a good lesson in the recent Urban Council voting on how to handle the Pillar of Shame. In this incident, other political parties criticized that since the ADPL was directed by China or influenced by others, it had voted against the idea of displaying the Pillar of Shame in the Victoria Park. The ADPL was also accused of stifling freedom and of suppressing the views of the minority. This incident has taught us that we should not wave the banner of individual liberties arbitrarily without good causes because we may be criticized by others who interpret freedom differently. Therefore, I hope that while we care about individual rights and freedoms, we would also pay attention to the fact that the interests of others should not be neglected. At the same time, we should consider the overall interests of Hong Kong as well. Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Frederick FUNG.

MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Thank you, Madam President. I mentioned earlier that civil liberties and social order are essential to the smooth operation of the community. I also said that civil rights are guaranteed by law and that social order, to be achieved through the implementation of certain rules, should aim to facilitate the smooth exercise of such rights. There is indeed a difference in priority between the two. I really cannot understand why other people fail to see this point.

Second, after I had spoken earlier, many colleagues referred to the examples I quoted and lots of other examples, in order to prove that my arguments were not valid. Contrary to their expectation, however, their attempts have added to the relevance of my examples, to an extent which is beyond the scope of the right to hold processions and assemblies. For example, Mr TSANG Yok-sing said, "Parents may start to worry when their children have grown up." He is right, but we should consider what should be done if one's children bring their friends home to drink and have a karaoke party, messing up the whole place. If we consider this point, this example would bring us many steps forward in our consideration of this issue. We are not supposed to stop our children from bringing their friends home. But, if they bring their friends home to have a karaoke party and if they mess things up, causing damage, the matter will no longer involve bringing friends home only. Our children certainly have the right to bring friends home, but they may not have the right to cause damage at home. We have to distinguish the two issues. The Honourable Mrs Elsie TU also mentioned the case that the people taking part in a procession may cause chaos. What we are talking about now is their right to hold processions and assemblies. If I decide to hold a procession, the procedure which I have to follow is to apply to or notify the Government or the police concerning the route which I am going to take, say from Victoria Park to the Xinhua News Agency. I also have to notify them of the purpose of the procession. Then, the police will make arrangements with respect to the proposed route. If the police consider that the proposed route should not be taken, or that traffic may be disrupted, they will discuss with us on choosing an alternative route. Normally, a procession should follow the direction of traffic, instead of going against it. After we have reached an agreement, we can go ahead with the procession. Hence, it can be said that the role of the police is to make arrangements which would facilitate the holding of processions. For a procession which is supposed to proceed from south to north, if a handful of people suddenly choose to proceed from north to south or jump over the central divider onto the opposite bound of the road, the case will no longer be related to the right to hold processions. According to Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, many people like to use loudhailers, and many people have complained about the loud noises produced. This is not related to the issue of processions, I must say, and there are in fact some other laws to deal with loudhailer noises. If excessive noises are made by the people using loudhailers, the police have the authority to stop or even prosecute these people. What is involved is a criminal offence and is outside the scope of today's discussion. Showing protest by lying down on the street is neither a procession nor an assembly. The Government can prosecute the people concerned for "obstructing a police officer in the discharge of his duties". Alternatively, other legal means can be considered. In any case, I do not think that such an action should be regarded as a procession. Many of the examples cited by Honourable colleagues are not related to the right to hold processions and assemblies under discussion. The last example cited is about "raiding" of government departments during a procession. "Raiding" a government department should not be considered a procession unless there is government or police permission. If no permission is given, the "raiding" of a government department is in itself an offence in criminal laws. Whether the Government will prosecute the offender or whether the police will arrest him or her is a separate issue which does not relate to the right of holding a procession.

Therefore, what Honourable colleagues have said do not actually have anything to do with what I am talking about. They are simply using unrelated or irrelevant issues to attack or criticize my arguments. Just let me put it this way, perhaps in a somewhat humorous way. A man has smeared my face and then he tells me, "Frederick FUNG, your face is smeared!" But, it is this man who has smeared my face! Let me clarify what a procession is all about. Under the current practice, we notify the police of the starting-point, the destination and the whole route of our procession, and then the police will discuss the appropriate arrangements with us. During this course, the intentions of the participants should be disclosed. If the participants subsequently choose to ignore the original notice and act against agreed arrangements, the police can stop or prosecute them by invoking other laws. But, that is already entirely outside the scope of our discussion on this Ordinance and I hope that Honourable colleagues will not mix things up and arouse our worries.

The last point is about the number of participants in procession. Under the existing Ordinance, application is required if the number of participants exceeds the prescribed level, and no application is required if the level is not exceeded. Under such circumstances, I still feel that the issue of civil rights is involved. And, it is perfectly reasonable and acceptable to make some technical arrangements. As far as civil rights are concerned, I still feel that the "notification" system is already good enough. Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? Mr LAU Kong-wah.

MR LAU KONG-WAH (in Cantonese): Madam President, first of all, I would like to discuss the issue of human rights, express my understanding about human rights, and then talk about the balance between the rights of the individual and those of the public. We have all along objected to putting the rights of the public above those of the individual. But today, I have learnt that some Members advocate putting the rights of the individual above those of the public. I must say that this advocation is somewhat dangerous. I think that we should look at human rights from the perspectives of the individual and of the public. And, these two Ordinances represent exactly how these two kinds of rights should be interpreted and implemented. The experience of modern society or foreign countries show that the transition from traditionalism to modernization is characterized by two developments. One is industrial development and the other is the development of democratic institutions. With respect to industrial development, many emergent industrial countries have come to realize the ecological damage done by developed industrial countries, and they are trying to avoid the same mistake. Similarly, emergent democracies are also able to see the problems experienced by "veteran" democracies as a result of their over-emphasis on individual liberties and neglect of the rights of the public at large. The United States is recognized as the leading democracy in the world. But, Newt GINGRICH, the Speaker of the House of the United States, has written a book entitled To Renew America. Why should America be renewed? In his book, he does not talk about individual liberties because he sees another problem: when too much emphasis is laid on individual liberties and rights of the public at large are neglected, the United States will face a real crisis. Do we want Hong Kong to follow the same path? This is a very important decision to make. If we insist that individual liberties should supersede the rights of the public at large, we will be following the same old path, the same dangerous path, of "veteran democracies". Therefore, I feel that upon the inception of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) Government, we must make a good start by charting our way forward on the basis of past experience. This means that we must strike a right balance between individual liberties and the rights of the public at large. That is the underlying principle.

During the debate on the Consultation Document, I pointed out that the current practice adopted by the police in dealing with processions and demonstrations was acceptable and that it would be dangerous to upset this balance. Therefore, when I now see that the Chief Executive's Office has amended most of the proposed provisions to bring them very close to the current practice, I must register my strong support, because a balance can thus be struck.

I would now like to discuss the issue of "national security". Just now, a colleague said that the incorporation of "national security" in the ordinance would be like hovering a sabre above our heads. This argument puzzles me greatly. I hold a different view that if we do not include the concept of "national security", we would be putting ourselves at gun-point. If the provision concerned is to safeguard the territorial integrity and independence of the People's Republic of China, why should it be compared to a sabre? I am puzzled. At first, public opinions expressed great anxieties over the concept of "national security", arguing that it was a novelty. Some people felt that its proposed definition was much too vague. But having had discussions with the Bills Committee, the Chief Executive's Office has drawn up a more precise definition for the concept. Then public opinions, especially those found in press commentaries and editorials, start to question whether the concept of "national security" would be used against processions and assemblies as a means of "witch-hunting". Such opinions also question whether peaceful attempts at secession will be prohibited. I wish to express my views on these two points. Mr CHAN Choi-hi's amendment seeks to change the definition to "the protection of the People's Republic of China from external military intervention and threat". I feel that the use of the term "external" is very dangerous, and the reason for this has been explained by other Members. I have to remind Members that most of the countries in the world are now united, with the exception of two. What matters most is that the division of a country may not necessarily be the result of any military threat, for internal factors also play a very important part. This is one characteristic of the "One China" problem. Therefore, even in other international covenants on human rights, the emphasis on a democratic society is qualified by a respect for the security and well-being of all. The divided state of China is linked to the international power struggles, a fact which makes the situation all the more volatile. If we ignore this fact, the territorial integrity of China will be at stake.

What then is my view about the concept of "peaceful attempts at secession"? Some people have asked me whether they can discuss the independence of Taiwan or the independence of Tibet. Since we have freedom of speech, I do not see any problem with that. This also applies to writing articles on the issues. Since we have freedom of speech, I do not think there should be any problems. However, if we organize a group of people for the purpose of actually promoting the cause, the matter will go beyond the scope of free speech and start to involve concrete actions. In this regard, the political development of Taiwan can provide a useful lesson. In the 1950s and 1960s, many individuals urged on the need for Taiwan to become independent, but the government did not suppress these opinions. Then in the 1970s, many processions and assemblies were staged to advocate the independence of Taiwan. But, even though such activities were against the law, the government took no action against them. In the 1980s, some people began to form political parties to promote the establishment of a Taiwan Republic. And today, in the 1990s, they want to register the Taiwan Republic with the United Nations as a nation. We can see the whole development process. As the subjects of China, do we wish to see such a development? The most important judgement to make is where to draw the line. In the final analysis, I feel that as legislators, apart from looking at the issue from the legal point of view, we also have to look at it from the perspective of history and international politics in order to make a political judgement. We have to gauge the aspirations of the people. We have to ascertain whether they want a unified country or a divided one. This is a dilemma. If we want a unified country, then this provision is absolutely necessary. I have to add one more point. If we think the implementation of "one country, two systems" in Hong Kong should aim to set an example for Taiwan, then what example do we wish to set? An example of national unification or of a divided country? This requires deeper reflection on our part. Therefore, I will oppose the amendments to the provision as proposed by some Members. As for "witch-hunting", it all depends on where the demarcation is drawn. The offence of slander, for example, also makes one liable for what one has said. However, there is nothing wrong with that because unjustified verbal attacks or libel should not be tolerated. Therefore, I do not think that it is always wrong to draw up criminal laws on expression of opinions. There should be a limit to freedom of speech.

Finally, I think that the only inadequacy in the drawing up these laws is that the Chief Executive's Office has not made any attempts to allay some public anxieties. What are the guidelines to be issued to the police all about? Will these guidelines be accessible to the public? Will they be very harsh? I think that the Chief Executive's Office must let the public know what these guidelines are all about before 1 July; otherwise, the public will still have anxieties. I expect the Chief Executive's Office to respond to these questions later on. Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Kam-lam.

MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): Madam President, the reason for amending the Public Order Ordinance and the Societies Ordinances is very clear: to balance civil liberties against social order and effective administration. Effective administration and law and order are absolutely required, and must not be weakened. In recent years, the people's perception of public order has been seriously distorted. The future of the Hong Kong after the changeover has been vilified in the transitional period, and bitter confrontation has been promoted as an acceptable part of our daily lives. Madam President, I consider such phenomena worrying. In any society, a set of appropriate laws is required for effective administration, and the relevant laws have to be amended from time to time to take account of social changes. This is precisely the spirit of taking appropriate steps to suit the needs of the situation. In amending the Public Order Ordinance and the Societies Ordinance, the SAR Government does not seek to repeal the Bill of Rights Ordinance, nor does it seek to restore any draconian laws. Rather, it seeks to ensure that civil liberties will not be infringed upon and that Hong Kong will not be used as a bridgehead of subversive activities against our State. This is welcomed and supported by the vast majority in Hong Kong.

Just now, Mr Frederick FUNG referred to the notification given to parents by children who want to go out, and he used this as a simple example to illustrate the point that people who want to hold a procession does not need to apply for permission because a notification should be enough. Many Members criticized this argument and Mr Frederick FUNG also sought to defend his point. While I believe that an example as simple as this one will probably be unable to fully illustrate Mr FUNG's aspirations regarding the issue, I must still point out that this example does serve to show his very simplistic views on how a community should be governed. Hong Kong is a place ruled by the rule of law. After the handover of sovereignty, the rule of law must be enforced even more strictly, so as to protect social order, civil liberties and the people's livelihood against any threats. No doubt, some people of ulteria motives have repeatedly claimed that they will defy the law by means of "civil disobedience". But, I do not think that the society of Hong Kong or the international community with the exception of individual countries will want to see Hong Kong run into any problems after the change of sovereignty. Madam President, let us keep our eyes and ears open on the future developments.

With these remarks, I support the Second Reading of the Bill.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TSANG Yok-sing.

MR TSANG YOK-SING (in Cantonese): Madam President, I do not intend to "smear" the Honourable Frederick FUNG's face. However, in case I say that I really see some "little stains" on his face I hope he will appreciate that it is his behaviour just now that has somehow blurred my sight, for he seemed to be explaining to us what the right to hold a procession is all about. According to him, one has the right to participate in a procession, but, if one walks in a direction opposite to that of others, one should not be regarded as participating in the procession. According to him, one has the right to participate in a procession, but if one uses a loudhailer during the procession, one should not be regarded as participating in the procession. According to him, one has the right to participate in a procession, but if the traffic is south-bound and one heads north, one should not be regarded as participating in the procession either. Owing to Mr Frederick FUNG's long-standing and high regard for human rights and civil liberties, I do not believe that it is his intention to tell us what should be, or should not be, regarded as the right to hold a procession. Nor do we think that he actually regards himself as the person who should lay down rules governing the holding of a procession. I also do not believe that he would think that the definition of a procession should be specified by the Chief Executive or anybody else. And, this is exactly why we need the Public Order Ordinance. The Public Order Ordinance clearly states that when the Commissioner of Police considers it inappropriate for a certain procession to be held, he must give ample justifications, and these justifications must fully conform with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Mr Frederick FUNG objected to any discussions on striking a "balance". But, when he spoke for the second time in this debate, he kept mentioning a "balance". He said that when we exercised this right, we had to consider what we should not do and whether we should prescribe by law those things which should not be done. So, after listening to Mr Frederick FUNG's second speech, I feel that he should fully support this Bill. But his conclusion and argument seemed to be just the opposite. That makes my sight a little bit "blurred".

These are my remarks. Thank you.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Frederick FUNG, you have already spoken, and therefore I can only allow you to speak according to the Rules of Procedure.

MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Yes, according to the Rules of Procedure. I think that Mr TSANG Yok-sing has got we wrong, and I want to make a point of clarification. The holding of a procession is governed by some clearly specified conditions. The organizer has to specify the starting point and destination of the procession. I have also pointed out just now that under the existing laws of Hong Kong, the use of loudhailers is dealt with under some other laws. The police has the authority to restrict the use of loudhailers but this authority has nothing to do with the laws on procession. The breach of traffic laws during a procession should not be handled by the laws on procession either. I just want to clarify this.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Point of order, Mrs Selina CHOW?

MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Yes, Madam President, a point of order. When a Member asks to clarify the points that he has made, he cannot introduce new matters in his clarification. The Honourable Frederick FUNG seems to have done more than making a clarification.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? Mr Bruce LIU, do you wish to speak?

MR BRUCE LIU (in Cantonese): Yes, Madam President. Regarding Mr TSANG Yok-sing's remarks, I would like to speak a few words for Mr Frederick FUNG. Having listened to their arguments, my own understanding is that, according to Mr FUNG, during a procession, the participants cannot violate other laws. This is the first point. We cannot argue that since approval for a procession has been granted, its participants are free to violate other laws. In other words, its participants are not allowed to commit any criminal offences under the laws of Hong Kong, such as assaulting others. This is the first point. Second, what the participants of a procession are free to do are limited to the acts which are not prohibited under any laws. Mr FUNG's arguments are as simple as that. Songs and slogan-chanting during a procession should be allowed as a means of voicing opinions. Mr Frederick FUNG was only trying to clarify these two points. Hence, Mr TSANG Yok-sing really should not talk about his "blurred sight" or Mr FUNG's "smeared" face, for I can see no point of argument here. What should be noted in our discussions on the Public Order Ordinance is that when we talk about a "balance", we should bear in mind that the right to procession must be affirmed first. If restrictions are to be imposed, such restrictions must be proved to be necessary and reasonable, and they must conform with international standards or the standards of the so-called big family of the civilized communities. The line that we draw has to be right, and the purpose of Mr CHAN Choi-hi's amendment is to draw this line clearly.

During the discussions on the issue, the Chief Executive's Office has in fact made many appropriate amendments. For example, concerning the definition of "national security", the wording used in the Bill is different from that used in the Consultation Document, and Members are well aware of that. What I seek to do is add just one more element to the definition of "national security": the element of "external force" or "threat". When this element is added, the Commissioner of Police can exercise his power to turn down an application for procession. The debate today has been very thorough and I just want to make this additional point. Thank you.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? If not, I will invite the Secretary for Policy Co-ordination to reply. Secretary for Policy Co-ordination.

SECRETARY FOR POLICY CO-ORDINATION (in Cantonese): Madam President, I already explained the background, principle and principal provisions of the Bill when I put it before this Council. Therefore, I will not repeat my points here. As in the case of the Societies (Amendment) Bill 1997, later in the Committee stage I will move amendments to this Bill to address the concerns of the Bills Committee.

Later, Mr CHAN Choi-hi will also move an amendment to delete the definition of "national security" as set out in the Bill. The concept of "national security" was widely discussed both in the consultation period in April and also at the meetings of the Bills Committee. "National security" is defined in the Bill as the safeguarding of the territorial integrity and the independence of the People's Republic of China. Such a defintion is in fact borrowed from a journal entitled Freedom of the Individual under Law published by the United Nations in 1990. Mr CHAN Choi-hi has confined the upholding of "national security" to the prevention of external military intervention or threat. However, threats to the territorial integrity and the independence of a nation in fact may not necessarily be military in nature. Most members of the Bills Committee support the definition proposed in the Bill. If the Bill is passed into law, we will issue some administrative guidelines to the Commissioner of Police, specifying that the application of "national security" factors has to comply with the demand of a democratic society.

Some Members have requested us to release the contents of the guidelines. I can assure Members here that we will certainly do so. At the same time, the Honourable Maria TAM has asked us to take her views into consideration in the course of preparing the guidelines. We will certainly consider her suggestion as there has been a precedent. Perhaps, Members may recall the Hong Kong Government's internal guidelines on the handling of political contributions. The Executive Council was involved, and it was with its consent and after much publicity that such guidelines were finally adopted. This time, we will also adopt a similar practice.

Mr CHAN also suggests that the provision on the issue of Notice of No Objection by the Commissioner of Police should be deleted. The Bill provides that, if the Commissioner of Police does not object to a public procession being held, he shall notify the person who gave notice in writing of his having no objection as soon as practicable within the stipulated time. Should the Commissioner fail to do so, he will be deemed to have issued such a notice. We consider such an arrangement sufficiently flexible as it will not affect the preparation of a procession. This provision should therefore be retained.

With these remarks, Madam President, I beg the Council to pass the Bill.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the Public Order (Amendment) 1997 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): Public Order (Amendment) Bill 1997.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members, I propose to suspend the meeting until half past Two o'clock in the afternoon.

Committee Stage of Bills

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Bills: Committee stage. This Council is now in Committee.

NATIONAL FLAG AND NATIONAL EMBLEM 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, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10.

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): Clauses 3, 5, 7 and 9.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Policy Co-ordination.

SECRETARY FOR POLICY CO-ORDINATION (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that clauses 3, 5, 7 and 9 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.

Proposed amendments

Clause 3 (see Annex I)

Clause 5 (see Annex I)

Clause 7 (see Annex I)

Clause 9 (see Annex I)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?

(No Member responded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendments to clauses 3, 5, 7 and 9 moved by the Secretary for Policy Co-ordination be approved. 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): Clauses 3, 5, 7 and 9 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.

CLERK (in Cantonese): Schedules 1 and 2.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Policy Co-ordination.

SECRETARY FOR POLICY CO-ORDINATION (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that Schedules 1 and 2 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.

Proposed amendments

Schedule 1 (see Annex I)

Schedule 2 (see Annex I)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?

(No Member responded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendments to Schedules 1 and 2 moved by the Secretary for Policy Co-ordination be approved. 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): Schedules 1 and 2 as amended.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): We now vote on the amended Schedules 1 and 2. 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): Schedule 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.

REGIONAL FLAG AND REGIONAL EMBLEM BILL

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the following clauses and schedules stand part of the Bill.

CLERK (in Cantonese): Clauses 1 to 4, 6, 8 and 9.

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): Clauses 5 and 7.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Policy Co-ordination.

SECRETARY FOR POLICY CO-ORDINATION (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that clauses 5 and 7 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.

Proposed amendments

Clause 5 (see Annex II)

Clause 7 (see Annex II)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak? Mr HO Sai-chu.

MR HO SAI-CHU (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, as I have said earlier, members of the Bills Committee did once hold divergent views over the amendment to clause 7. But, they were able to reach a consensus in the end. I would like to thank all colleagues here, particularly those on the Bills Committee who managed to reach a consensus patiently within the very limited time. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the colleagues of the Chief Executive's Office and government officials, who promptly responded to our proposals. Here, I call on Members to pass the amendment.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? Do you wish to speak, Secretary for Policy Co-ordination?

(The Secretary for Policy Co-ordination indicated that he did not wish to speak)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendments to clauses 5 and 7 moved by the Secretary for Policy Co-ordination be approved. 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): Clauses 5 and 7 as amended.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): We now vote on the amended clauses 5 and 7. 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): Schedule 1.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Policy Co-ordination.

SECRETARY FOR POLICY CO-ORDINATION (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that Schedule 1 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.

Proposed amendment

Schedule 1 (see Annex II)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?

(No Member responded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment to Schedule 1 as moved by the Secretary for Policy Co-ordination be approved. 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): Schedule 1 as amended.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): We now vote on the amended Schedule 1. 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): Schedules 2 to 4.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): We now vote on Schedules 2 to 4. 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.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Members, because of a minor point of order, we have to make a slight adjustment. I now suspend the Committee for five minutes.

(Committee suspended)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Members, I have made a slight revision to the agenda to streamline our work. Next, we will deal with the Public Order (Amendment) Bill 1997.

PUBLIC ORDER (AMENDMENT) BILL 1997

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the following clauses and schedules stand part of the Bill.

CLERK (in Cantonese): Clauses 1, 6 and 14.

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): Clause 2.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Policy Co-Ordination.

SECRETARY FOR POLICY CO-ORDINATION (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that clause 2 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.

Proposed amendment

Clause 2 (see Annex III)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?

(No Member responded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment to clause 2 moved by the Secretary for Policy Co-ordination be approved. 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. Mr CHAN Choi-hi.

MR CHAN CHOI-HI (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that clause 2 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.

Proposed amendment

Clause 2 (see Annex III)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak? Miss Maria TAM.

MISS MARIA TAM (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, much as I have wanted to justify my case though, I will not comment any further on individual Member's amendments. I feel that at this juncture, we will show the greatest respect for the rest of Honourable colleagues if we could all stop repeating our arguments over and over again. Just let Member cast their votes now, so that they can decide for themselves whether they will support the amendments recommended by the Bills Committee and those moved by the Chief Executive's Office. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr TSO WONG Man-yin.

DR TSO WONG MAN-YIN (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, when the Chief Executive's Office published the Consultation Document on Civil Liberties and Social Order, the Hong Kong Government and some organizations in the community lashed out at the Chief Executive's Office for bringing in the concept of "national security" used in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) of the United Nations. They argued that as defined in the ICCRR, the concept of "national security" should be invoked to place restrictions on certain civil rights only when the existence, territorial integrity or political independence of the country concerned is under military threat. The critics therefore said this concept should not be incorporated in the Public Order Ordinance and the Societies Ordinance in such a rash manner. It is against this background that the Honourable CHAN Choi-hi of this Council proposes to delete the concept of "national security" from the Bills and substitute with "the protection of the People's Republic of China from external military intervention and threat".

However, let me put a question to those who are against the idea of incorporating the concept of "national security" in the Ordinances. Starting from 1 July this year, China will resume its exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong. In other words, as part of China, Hong Kong is obliged to uphold the principle of "one country" and to protect the overall interests of the State. In the future if a group of people organize themselves into a society which aims to support the independence of Tibet, or if banners supporting "the independence of Taiwan" or "the independence of Tibet" are held up in a procession or in an assembly, should the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) tolerate such an organization or such actions?

As legislators, we ought to caution ourselves that with the growing economic, social and political ties between Hong Kong and the Mainland, we must guard against the instigation of any seditious activities which aim to change the political system of China. Therefore, there is a practical need to incorporate the concept of "national security" in the amended provisions as a restrictive measure.

In order to prevent the Administration from abusing its power, that is, to prevent it from rashly applying the provisions on national security to restrict the freedoms of association and of assembly in Hong Kong, the amendment Public Order Ordinance and Societies Ordinance will retain an appeals mechanism, under which an independent 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. Any member of the public aggrieved by the relevant rulings may apply to the court for a judicial review. Mr TUNG Chee-wah, the Chief Executive, and Miss Elsie LEUNG, the Secretary for Justice (Designate), have repeatedly stressed that the SAR will not follow the interpretation of "national security" adopted by the Chinese Government. Rather, the SAR will continue to adhere to the common law interpretation and standards in the international covenants on human rights. Therefore, it is wrong for Members to liken the concept of "national security" to "a sabre hovering about the neck"; instead, I feel that it is more appropriate to compare it to an umbrella or a safety belt.

Nevertheless, in actual practice, actions which may jeopardize national security may take on many forms, and the Public Order Ordinance and Societies Ordinance alone will not be able to deal adequately with them all. We think that apart from working out a clearer definition of the concept of "national security", the Chief Executive's Office should also consider drawing up another law, similar to the existing Crimes Ordinances, so as to codify the requirements prescribed by Article 23 of the Basic Law. That way, all acts relating to national security can be dealt with in a comprehensive manner.

Madam Chairman, I would also like to talk about the provisions of the Public Order (Amendment) Bill 1997 on how the SAR Government would handle future processions and assemblies. As those Honourable colleagues who have lived overseas may also be aware, if anyone wants to hold a procession or assembly in a big city in the United States or Canada, such as New York, San Francisco and Chicago, he or she has to apply for a permit from the relevant government departments beforehand, and the route of the procession is also under restrict control. Yet, in Hong Kong, the Consultation Document only suggests to maintain the notification system. This is so much more lenient in comparison.

If we compare the laws of foreign countries on processions and assemblies with the ones proposed by the Chief Executive's Office in the Consultation Document ......

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mrs Selina CHOW ...... Dr TSO WONG Man-yin, as Mrs Selina CHOW has raised a point of order, please let her speak first.

MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, a point of order. Since we are now in Committee, we have to speak on the relevant amendments. If our debate deviates too far from the question, I believe that we will have to spend a great deal of time debating issues which are irrelevant to the question under discussion.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr TSO WONG Man-yin, please try to speak on the amendment as far as possible.

DR TSO WONG MAN-YIN (in Cantonese): Thank you, Madam Chairman. In addition, we are also very glad to see that the Chief Executive's Office has listened to the view of the Hong Kong Progressive Alliance on allowing the Commissioner of Police to exercise his dicretion under special circumstances to permit the conduct of a procession with shorter notice than 72 hours ......

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr TSO WONG Man-yin, just a moment please. Another point of order has been raised. Mr James TIEN.

MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, a point of order. Dr TSO WONG Man-yin is speaking on clause 7 but we are now dealing with clause 2.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr TSO WONG Man-yin, could you wait till we deal with clause 7 before you deliver the rest of your speech?

DR TSO WONG MAN-YIN (in Cantonese): Thank you, Madam Chairman. I so submit.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?

(No Member responded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): If not, Secretary for Policy Co-ordination, do you wish to speak?

(The Secretary for Policy Co-ordination indicated that he did not wish to speak)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Choi-hi, do you wish to reply?

MR CHAN CHOI-HI (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, the purpose of my amendment is to narrow down the definition of "national security" for greater clarity. As a result, I have chosen to phrase the definition as follows: "the protection of the People's Republic of China from external military intervention and threat". I maintain that this amendment can reflect the present situation more appropriately than a vague definition of eight Chinese characters, because the latter can hardly give people a clear idea. We have to be accountable to the public. If my amendment is passed, the Bill can better relate to today's new environment and new situation. As regards Article 23 of the Basic Law, I feel that since the SAR Government will enact separate laws on this matter, there is no need to incorporate the concept of "national security" in the Societies Ordinance and the Public Order Ordinance at this stage.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr NGAI Shiu-kit.

MR NGAI SHIU-KIT (in Cantonese): I cannot help making a response because Mr CHAN Choi-hi has brought up Article 23 of the Basic Law again. Is military force the only thing that can threaten a nation's security? Is secession not a threat to national security, too? So, I feel that this argument is unsound and I am absolutely against it.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): If no other Member wish to speak, I now put the question to you and that is: That the further amendment to clause 2 moved by Mr CHAN Choi-hi be approved. 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 "noes" have it.

(Mr CHAN Choi-hi claimed a division)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Choi-hi has claimed a division. The Committee will proceed to a division. The division bell will ring for three minutes. The Committee now proceeds to a division.

Mr MOK Ying-fan, Mr CHAN Choi-hi, Mr Frederick FUNG and Mr Bruce LIU voted for the amendment.

Mr James TIEN, Mr David CHU, Mr HO Sai-chu, Mr Edward HO, Dr Raymond HO, Mr NG Leung-sing, Prof NG Ching-fai, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Elsie TU, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mrs Peggy LAM, Mr Henry WU, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr YUEN Mo, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Dr TSO WONG Man-yin, Mr LEUNG Chun-ying, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mrs Sophie LEUNG, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TSANG Yok-sing, Mr CHENG Kai-nam, Mr Kennedy WONG, Dr Charles YEUNG, Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr LAU Kong-wah, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr Paul CHENG, Dr TANG Siu-tong, Mr Timothy FOK, Mr KAN Fook-yee, Mr LO Suk-ching, Miss Maria TAM and Mr TAM Yiu-chung voted against the amendment.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The voting result is: four votes for the amendment and 40 votes against it. I declare the "noes" have it. I declare that the amendment is negatived.

CLERK (in Cantonese): Clause 2 as amended.

DR LEONG CHE-HUNG (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, in accordance with Rule 49(3) of the Rules of Procedure, I move that in the event of further divisions being claimed in respect of the Bill, the Chairman shall order the Committee to proceed to each of such divisions immediately after the division bell has rung for one minute.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Thank you. I now put to you the question on the motion moved by Dr LEONG Che-hung and that is: In the event of further divisions being claimed in respect of the Bill, the Chairman shall order the Committee to proceed to each of such divisions immediately after the division bell has rung for one minute.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?

(No Member responded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please "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.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): We now vote on the amended clause 2. 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.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): As the Committee has just negatived the amendment to clause 2 proposed by Mr CHAN Choi-hi, although Mr CHAN has given notice to move amendments to clauses 3, 4, 5, 8 and 12, these amendments will be inconsistent to the decision already taken. Hence, under Rule 57(4) of the Rules of Procedure, I shall not allow Mr CHAN Choi-hi to move his amendments to the above clauses.

CLERK (in Cantonese): Clauses 3, 4 and 5.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Policy Co-ordination.

SECRETARY FOR POLICY CO-ORDINATION (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that clauses 3, 4 and 5 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.

Proposed amendments

Clause 3 (see Annex III)

Clause 4 (see Annex III)

Clause 5 (see Annex III)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendments to clauses 3, 4 and 5 moved by the Secretary for Policy Co-ordination be approved. 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): Clauses 3, 4 and 5 as amended.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): We now vote on the amended clauses 3, 4 and 5. 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): Clause 7.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Choi-hi.

MR CHAN CHOI-HI (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that clause 7 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.

Proposed amendment

Clause 7 (see Annex III)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr TSO WONG Man-yin, do you wish to speak on clause 7?

DR TSO WONG MAN-YIN (in Cantonese): Thank you, Madam Chairman. We, the Hong Kong Progressive Alliance, are very glad to see that the Chief Executive's Office has listened to our view on allowing the Commissioner of Police to exercise his discretionary powers under special circumstances to permit a procession to take place with shorter notice than 72 hours, so that there is more flexibility for the public to make arrangement for holding processions to express their opinions.

To tie in with the political openness of Hong Kong, and to alleviate the pressure on the enforcement of the Public Order Ordinance, we again urge that during the course of town planning in the future, the SAR Government should consider drawing up more procession and assembly zones like those found in the Hyde Park of the United Kingdom, so that those who wish to hold processions or assemblies will be able to do so without informing the police and without causing any disruption to the normal order of society.

With these remarks, Madam Chairman, I support the original amendments moved by the Chief Executive's Office.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr James TIEN.

MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, following the revision made by the Chief Executive's Office, clause 7 is now different from its original version, that is, the one proposed in the Consultation Document. Under the original version, if the organizer of a procession does not receive a written Notice of No Objection or Notice of Objection within seven days after his application, he would not know what to do. Many people have expressed their concern: In the event that they submit an application, but the Commissioner of Police neither rejects their application nor issues a Notice of No Objection, what then are they supposed to do? Now, the finalized version provides that under such circumstances, if they do not receive a Notice of Objection, they can consider that approval has been given for them to hold their processions. The Liberal Party considers that this already satisfies the demand of most people, and so there should not be any problem. Hence, we support the Chief Executive's Office revised version and oppose the Honourable CHAN Choi-hi's amendment to it.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Policy Co-ordination, do you wish to speak?

(The Secretary for Policy Co-ordination indicated that he did not wish to speak)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Choi-hi, do you intend to speak?

(Mr CHAN Choi-hi indicated that he had no intention to speak)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment to clause 7 moved by Mr CHAN Choi-hi be approved. 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 "noes" have it.

(Mr CHAN Choi-hi claimed a division)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Choi-hi claimed a division. The Committee will proceed to a division. The division bell will ring for one minute. The Committee now proceeds to a division.

Mr MOK Ying-fan, Mr CHAN Choi-hi, Mr Frederick FUNG and Mr Bruce LIU 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, Prof NG Ching-fai, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Elsie TU, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mrs Peggy LAM, Mr Henry WU, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr YUEN Mo, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Dr TSO WONG Man-yin, Mr LEUNG Chun-ying, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mrs Sophie LEUNG, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TSANG Yok-sing, Mr CHENG Kai-nam, Mr Kennedy WONG, Dr Charles YEUNG, Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr LAU Kong-wah, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr Paul CHENG, Dr TANG Siu-tong, Mr Timothy FOK, Mr KAN Fook-yee, Mr LO Suk-ching, Miss Maria TAM and Mr TAM Yiu-chung voted against the amendment.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The voting result is: four votes for the amendment and 41 votes against it. I declare the "noes" have it. I declare that the amendment is negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Choi-hi, as the Committee has negatived your amendment to clause 7, the amendments to clauses 9, 10, 11 and 13 that you have given notice to move will be inconsistent with the decision already taken. Hence under Rule 57(4) of the Rules of Procedure, I shall not allow you to move the above amendments.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Policy Co-ordination.

SECRETARY FOR POLICY CO-ORDINATION (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that clause 7 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.

Proposed amendment

Clause 7 (see Annex III)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?

(No Member responded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment to clause 7 moved by the Secretary for Policy Co-ordination be approved. 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): Clause 7 as amended.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): We now vote on the amended clause 7. Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please say "no".

(Member responded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I think the "ayes" have it. The "ayes" have it.

CLERK (in Cantonese): Clause 8.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Policy Co-ordination.

SECRETARY FOR POLICY CO-ORDINATION (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that clause 8 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.

Proposed amendment

Clause 8 (see Annex III)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?

(No Member responded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment to clause 8 moved by the Secretary for Policy Co-ordination be approved. 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): Clause 8 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.

CLERK (in Cantonese): Clause 9.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Policy Co-ordination.

SECRETARY FOR POLICY CO-ORDINATION (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that clause 9 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.

Proposed amendment

Clause 9 (see Annex III)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?

(No Member responded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by the Secretary for Policy Co-ordination to clause 9 be approved. 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): Clause 9 as amended.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): We now vote on the amended clause 9. 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): Clauses 10 and 11.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the original clauses 10 and 11 stand part of the Bill. 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): Clause 12.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the original clause 12 stand part of the Bill. 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): Clause 13.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the original clause 13 stand part of the Bill. 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): Clause 15.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Policy Co-ordination.

SECRETARY FOR POLICY CO-ORDINATION (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that clause 15 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.

Proposed amendment

Clause 15 (see Annex III)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?

(No Member responded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by the Secretary for Policy Co-ordination to clause 15 be approved. 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): Clause 15 as amended.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): We now vote on the amended clause 15. 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): Clause 16.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Choi-hi.

MR CHAN CHOI-HI (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that clause 16 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.

Proposed amendment

Clause 16 (see Annex III)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?

(No Member responded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Choi-hi to clause 16 be approved. Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please say "no".

(Members responded)

(Mr CHAN Choi-hi indicated that he wished to claim a division)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Choi-hi wishes to claim a division. I announce that this Committee will now proceed to a division. The division bell will ring for one minute. I now announce that the division commences.

Mr MOK Ying-fan, Mr CHAN Choi-hi, Mr Frederick FUNG and Mr Bruce LIU 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, Prof NG Ching-fai, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Elsie TU, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mrs Peggy LAM, Mr Henry WU, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr YUEN Mo, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Dr TSO WONG Man-yin, Mr LEUNG Chun-ying, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mrs Sophie LEUNG, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TSANG Yok-sing, Mr CHENG Kai-nam, Mr Kennedy WONG, Dr Charles YEUNG, Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr LAU Kong-wah, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr Paul CHENG, Dr TANG Siu-tong, Mr Timothy FOK, Mr KAN Fook-yee, Mr LO Suk-ching, Miss Maria TAM and Mr TAM Yiu-chung voted against the amendment.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now announce the voting result. There are four votes in favour of the amendment and 41 votes against it. I declare the "noes" have it. I declare that the amendment is negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Policy Co-ordination, as the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Choi-hi has been negatived, you may now move your amendment to clause 16.

SECRETARY FOR POLICY CO-ORDINATION (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that clause 16 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.

Proposed amendment

Clause 16 (see Annex III)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?

(No Member responded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by the Secretary for Policy Co-ordination to clause 16 be approved. 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): Clause 16 as amended.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): We now vote on the amended clause 16. 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): Schedule.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): We now vote on the Schedule. 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.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Honourable Members, we shall now consider the Societies (Amendment) Bill 1997. I now propose the question to you and that is: That the following clauses stand part of the Bill.

CLERK (in Cantonese): Clauses 1, 2, 3(2), 6, 7, 9, 10, 12 to 14, 18, 20 and 21.

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): Clause 3(1).

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Bruce LIU.

MR BRUCE LIU (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that clause 3(1) be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members. Honourable Members, clause 3(1) seeks to delete the definition of "foreign political organizations" and "political organizations of Taiwan" and substitute with "political organization outside Hong Kong". This, as a result, has led to a change in the definition of "connection" and other corresponding amendments to the Bill. Here, I would like to thank the Secretariat for amending the script of this Meeting so speedily, and the efficiency thus shown deserves our commendation indeed. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Proposed amendment

Clause 3(1) (see Annex IV)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak? Secretary for Policy Co-ordination, do you wish to reply?

(The Secretary for Policy Co-ordination indicated that he was not prepared to reply)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LAU Kong-wah.

MR LAU KONG-WAH (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I would like to express my opinions towards this amendment. In paragraph 14 of PLC Paper No. 375/96-97, that is, the report of the Bills Committee concerned, the definitions of "foreign political organizations" and "political organizations of Taiwan" are discussed. But I find the viewpoints contained in it rather questionable. The fourth line says that "...... which mainly deals with "foreign" and "Taiwan" as two entities separated from Hong Kong". I do not quite catch the meaning of "entities". The two viewpoints which follow are also questionable. The first one is: "and which does not distinguish the People's Republic of China from Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. They regard that it is a fact that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is part of the People's Republic of China (PRC) and their benefits are interlocked and interchangeable". This viewpoint is shared by the majority of Members. Naturally, the benefits of China and Hong Kong are interlocked and interchangeable, but can this be taken to mean that the benefits of PRC and Taiwan, or that the benefits of Hong Kong and Taiwan are not in line with one another? This kind of presentation may be misleading. From a long-term point of view and in a broad sense, the benefits of the PRC, Hong Kong and Taiwan are actually interlocked and interchangeable. This is the first point that I would like to explain. My second point concerns the following sentence: "especially under the concept of "one country, two systems", and it will serve no purpose to distinguish the People's Republic of China from Hong Kong." I find this sentence very weird, because, under the concept of "one country, two systems", it is necessary that the two systems be distinguished, otherwise, what is the point of adopting "one country, two systems"? During the debate just now, not a few Members referred to this concept, saying that this issue had to be perceived from the perspective of "one country", and that due to interlocking and interchangeable benefits, the incorporation of "outside Hong Kong" is unacceptable. But, if we look at the issue from the other perspective, that is from the perspective of "two systems", we will find that it is necessary for us to impose some restrictions, especially on donations. Some Honourable Members mentioned a moment ago that the adoption of "outside Hong Kong" had extended the scope of the restriction, but they could not tell what was so bad about this. Rather than producing any bad effect, this is more conducive to "one country, two systems" and can ensure impartiality. Therefore, I support the amendment moved by the Honourable Bruce LIU.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? Mr LIU, you do not intend to reply, do you?

(Mr Bruce LIU indicated that he did not intend to reply)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr Bruce LIU to clause 3(1) be approved. Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please say "no".

(Members responded)

MR BRUCE LIU (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I wish to claim a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Bruce LIU has claimed a division. I now announce that we proceed to a division. The division bell will ring for three minutes. I now announce that the division commences.

Mr MA Fung-kwok, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Mr CHAN Choi-hi, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Kennedy WONG, Mr Bruce LIU and Mr LAU Kong-wah 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, Prof NG Ching-fai, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Elsie TU, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mrs Peggy LAM, Mr Henry WU, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr YUEN Mo, 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 TSANG Yok-sing, Mr CHENG Kai-nam, Dr Charles YEUNG, Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr Paul CHENG, Dr TANG Siu-tong, Mr Timothy FOK, Mr KAN Fook-yee, Mr LO Suk-ching, Miss Maria TAM and Mr TAM Yiu-chung voted against the amendment.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now announce the voting result. There are eight votes in favour of the amendment and 37 votes against it. I declare the "noes" have it. I declared that the amendment is negatived. Dr LEONG Che-hung.

DR LEONG CHE-HUNG (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, in accordance with Rule 49(3) of the Rules of Procedure, I once again move that in the event any Member claims a division in respect of this Bill, the Chairman can order the Committee to proceed to the division immediately after the division bell has rung for one minute.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Thank you, Dr LEONG Che-hung. I now put the question to you and that is: That in the event any Member claims a division in respect of this Bill, the Chairman can order the Committee to proceed to the division immediately after the division bell has rung for one minute.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?

(No Members responded)

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): I think the "ayes" have it. The "ayes" have it.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Policy Co-ordination, as the amendment moved by Mr Bruce LIU has been negatived, you may now move your amendment to clause 3(1).

SECRETARY FOR POLICY CO-ORDINATION (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that clause 3(1) be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.

Proposed amendment

Clause 3(1) (see Annex IV)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?

(No Members responded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by the Secretary for Policy Co-ordination to clause 3(1) be approved. 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): Clause 3(1) as amended.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): We now vote on the amended clause 3(1). 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): Clause 3(3).

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Bruce LIU.

MR BRUCE LIU (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that clause 3(3) be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members. Clause 3(3) seeks to incorporate an automatic exemption mechanism in the registration of societies. With this automatic exemption, this Ordinance will not apply to any society formed solely for religious, charitable, social or recreational purposes and which consists of not more than 30 members including its office-bearers. I hope that Honourable Members will support this amendment.

In the debate a moment ago, I did ask a question. But, so far, I have not received a very good answer from Honourable Members. I hope that the Chief Executive's Office can give us a reply later. This question concerns the existing legislation under which, a society, regardless of its nature, must apply to the Societies Officer for registration or exemption from registration once it has been operating or established for one month. This practice, as a matter of fact, has been causing great inconvenience to the public. I, therefore, propose this automatic exemption mechanism, and my aim is to achieve the objective of this piece of proposed legislation without causing an inconvenience to the people. The proposed provision requires that all societies concerned must apply for exemption from registration. Although these applications are usually approved, we must remember that societies which consist of less than 30 members should not in the first place have to submit any applications. Some examples are certain youth centres and societies. I hope that Honourable Members will support my amendment to this clause on careful consideration. Thank you.

Proposed amendment

Clause 3(3) (see Annex IV)

MR CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr NGAI Shiu-kit.

MR NGAI SHIU-KIT (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, this in itself is a very well-intentioned amendment. However, if we look at the situation in Hong Kong now, we will notice that there are a lot of societies or organizations which cry up wine and sell vinegar. For that reason, it will be hasty of me to support the amendment. The issue under discussion reminds me of a church, or better say, a cult, some years ago. Were its activities related to Christianity? As we all know, its "famous leader" is still actively promoting his cause. Is this not a case of "crying up wine and selling vinegar"? Is this fellow really propagating Christianity? No, he is simply dealing a blow of insult to Christianity. For all these considerations, I have to oppose the amendment despite my appreciation of its good intention.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr James TIEN.

MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, as far as the Societies Ordinance is concerned, the subject of our discussions now is whether or not we should grant exemption from registration to societies formed solely for religious, charitable or welfare purposes. First of all, we must be very clear that all existing societies, whether they have been formed for religious, charitable, welfare or political purposes, are not required to re-apply for registration under the so-called "deeming provision" of the Bill. Therefore, there will not be any problem with a statutory organization like the Hong Kong Council of Social Service (HKCSS) which Mr HUI Yin-fat mentioned just now. And, as I understand it, the social work groups under the HKCSS, which number several dozens or even more than 100, are not required to re-apply for registration either. All currently registered societies in Hong Kong do not have to re-apply for registration. But, what about new societies? A moment ago, Mr Bruce LIU mentioned a case, in which, he said, a group of youngsters would have to apply for registration within one month after they have come together as a society. Let me tell Mr LIU that, as proposed in the Bill, even if a society's application for registration is rejected, say, because it has foreign connections or because it is a political body, its members will not thus be considered as having committed a criminal offence, and they will not be imprisoned or fined following the rejection. As proposed in the Bill, the worst that would happen is that their society will be prohibited from operating any further. I do not think that this will pose any difficulties to those who want to form new societies. They can hold meetings, conduct discussions and then submit an application. In case the application is rejected, they will not be imprisoned. There is no question of imprisonment. In my opinion, the provisions of the Bill have already taken care of the interests of the various parties. Societies applying for registration should not worry too much, not to mention those societies which are formed for genuine religious, charitable and social welfare purposes.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Frederick FUNG.

MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Thank you, Madam Chairman. I hope that Mr SUEN of the Chief Executive's Office will give us a clear answer to this question: After the Ordinance concerned has been enacted, will those societies which have not applied for registration be regarded as illegal societies? Although I do not belong to the HKCSS, I was once engaged in social work and the organization for which I worked at that time happened to be under the HKCSS. So, let me discuss the needs in the field of social work. There are many voluntary organizations under the HKCSS, of which the Caritas is one, and I am going to use it as an example to illustrate my point. Usually, a voluntary organization like the Caritas will operate a number of community centres in various districts, where social workers will assist young people in forming self-programming groups. These youth groups usually do not register, and they are not part of the Caritas, because they are not members of the Caritas. Members of the Caritas only include the Board of Directors and the social workers it employs. The youth groups which social workers help to form will make decisions and organize activities on their own, and they even have to raise funds to finance their activities. These youth groups have their own names, chairmen, secretaries and treasurers. Their life span may just be two or three years, but new groups keep coming up. In the district where I now work, there are many football teams, each comprising 10 to 20 members. These teams have their own names and even their own uniforms, managers and coaches, and they often hold matches with football teams of other housing estates. Their activities are systematic and organized. However, when the members of a team grow up or get married, they will withdraw and in the end the football team will disband automatically. Referring to the Bill again, and in the case of these organizations with their own names and systems of operation and finances, if they do not apply to the Government for registration, will they still be considered as legal? I hope that the Secretary will answer this question. If they are considered as illegal, the exemption mechanism proposed by Mr Bruce LIU will be necessary.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LAU Kong-wah.

MR LAU KONG-WAH (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, originally I did not have any particular views on this amendment. However, after listening to the discussions just now, I think I am inclined to supporting the amendment. As mentioned by some Members a moment ago, many of the major provisions have already been passed, and the remaining provisions are relatively straightforward in nature. That being the case, I would say that we may well afford a bit more latitude, so as to create a more relaxed atmosphere in the community. Mr NGAI Shiu-kit referred to the case of "crying up wine and selling vinegar". This indeed is a common social phenomenon. I agree. However, Mr NGAI needs not worry because while a person can always "cry up wine", we will certainly go after him when he actually "sells vinegar"; there are other laws to stop him from doing so. Nevertheless, "where God has his church, the devil will have his chapel". People will always come up with ways to counteract the restrictions imposed on them. Thus, the most important point about this Ordinance is that it may scare off well-behaved people, instead of deterning people with bad intentions. The examples just quoted by Mr Bruce LIU and Mr Frederick FUNG are real life cases. All over Hong Kong, there are many district-based small-scale or "mini" societies. In my opinion, if these "well-behaved people" are scared off by the Ordinance, it may not necessarily be a good thing during the transition period. I hope that this minor amendment can be beneficial to the well-behaved people and to the atmosphere of the entire society during the transition period. I do hope that Honourable Members can support this amendment. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr MA Fung-kwok.

MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): Thank you, Madam Chairman. My opinions are very similar to those of the Honourable LAU Kong-wah. More than 20 years ago, I also joined some self-help youth groups which were dedicated to social work and community service. In my opinion, we should give community organizations a chance, so that young people can be mobilized to serve the community. Although these organizations have quite short life spans, each lasting for two to three years only, they do a positive role during their existence. Therefore, I think that since the main body of this Bill has basically been worked out, we should, as far as possible, allow a little bit more latitude over the technicalities, so as not to hinder the work of social workers or those who want to serve the community. Therefore, I am in support of this amendment. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr KAN Fook-yee.

MR KAN FOOK-YEE (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, the amendment moved by Mr Bruce LIU and the cases quoted by Mr Frederick FUNG a moment ago are very different in scope. The amendment of Mr Bruce LIU, if carried, will be very wide in its scope of application, but the cases quoted by Mr Frederick FUNG are of very limited implication. Therefore, I will not support Mr Bruce LIU's amendment. However, I do call upon the Secretary for Policy Co-ordination to take into account the cases quoted by Mr Frederick FUNG and the opinions of Mr MA Fung-kwok with a view to working out a more lenient measure to deal with the situation.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? Mr James TIEN.

MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, Members can speak for a second time during the Committee stage of a Bill. What I would like to say is that even if a societies registration system may really inconvenience some well-behaved people, we must still ask ourselves whether we should thus abandon the striking of a balance when such a system can in fact deter the wrong-doings of ill-intentioned people? In the case of those youngsters who want to serve the community, even if they fail to submit an application for registration within one month after the setting up of their organizations, what penalties would they face? Usually, penalties for offences are of two kinds, imprisonment and a fine. However, as proposed in the Bill, there will be no fine and no imprisonment, and prohibition from further operation is the only result. The problem is, in fact, really minor. If we look at the matter from another angle, we will see the possibility that young people may be tempted by undesirable elements to join triad societies and to take part in some illegal activities. So, if we argue that any assembly with less than 30 participants should be exempted from submitting an application, we will in fact be neglecting the possibility that young people may be corrupted by undesirable elements. Should we therefore strike a balance in this regard? Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?

(No Member responded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): If not, Secretary for Policy Co-ordination, do you wish to speak?

SECRETARY FOR POLICY CO-CORDINATION (in Cantonese): Thank you, Madam Chairman. Honourable Members' discussions have been focused on whether the kinds of societies in question should be exempted from registration. As a matter of fact, they can all be exempted. The only difference between amending the Ordinance and not amending it is that without the amendment, exemption will be granted only upon application, and, with the amendment, automatic exemption can be granted under certain conditions. I hope that Honourable Members can understand this difference. The question now is not whether the societies concerned should be granted exemption because they can be exempted eventually. As some Members mentioned earlier, this involves precisely the question of whether or not more latitude should be allowed. This is only a matter of difference in degree. Mr Frederick FUNG asked me to answer his question, and so did Mr KAN Fook-yee. Let me make it very clear here that this is not a court and I am also not a judge. What are the specific details of the matters to which I am required to respond? I have no idea at all. It is impossible and inappropriate for me to answer their questions on the basis of generality. In the future, if some cases require judgement of the court, they should be referred to the court for ruling. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Bruce LIU, are you preared to reply?

MR BRUCE LIU (in Cantonese): Thank you, Madam Chairman. I will make three points only very briefly. First, Mr James TIEN is certainly right in pointing out that those societies which have already notified the Societies Officer under the existing Societies Ordinance will be regarded as registered societies. Hence, I agree that these societies should have no worry at all. But, the proposed legislation will pose a problem after 1997. If this law is passed, a lot of societies, especially those "mini" ones, will be regarded as illegal societies if they do not apply for exemption from registration. No doubt, the people concerned will not be imprisoned, and there is thus no problem in this respect. Nevertheless, once these "mini" organizations become illegal societies, their operation will be greatly inconvenienced. That is why I have proposed an exemption mechanism which, as a matter of fact, is more lenient. In regard to Mr TIEN's point on undersirable elements and triad societies, I would say that even the Societies Ordinance will not be of any real use, because triad societies will simply not apply for registration or exemption from registration. The issue I now want to deal with does not relate to triad societies but to those four kinds of societies. Finally, I wish to remind Honourable Members that the Public Order Ordinance also provides for a similar automatic exemption mechanism. For example, it is stipulated that, in the case of an assembly/procession with less than 30 participants, the organizers shall not have to submit applications to the Government. The reason for specifying the conditions so clearly in the Ordinance is that since members of the public have the right to hold assemblies and processions, a clear dividing line must be drawn so that automatic exemption from application can be granted whenever the number of participants is smaller than the specified size, or whenever the purpose involved is not to discuss social incidents. This will save a lot of police manpower. This practice should also apply to the operation of societies. If a clear dividing line can be drawn, the Societies Officer will be saved a lot of time and troubles.

Since almost all the provisions deliberated just now have been carried, I hope that Honourable Members can be more lenient in this regard and support my amendment. I call upon Honourable Members to consider it again. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr Bruce LIU to clause 3(3) be approved. 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 "noes" have it.

MR BRUCE LIU (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I claim a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Bruce LIU has claimed a division. I announce that we now proceed to a division. Since the motion moved by Dr LEONG Che-hung has just been carried, the division bell will ring for one minute. The division will now commence.

Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr Mok Ying-fan, Mr CHAN Choi-hi, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Kennedy WONG, Mr Bruce LIU and Mr LAU Kong-wah voted for the amendment.

Mr WONG Siu-yee, Mr James TIEN, Mr David CHU, Mr Edward HO, Dr Raymond HO, Mr NG Leung-sing, Prof NG Ching-fai, Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Elsie TU, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mrs Peggy LAM, Mr Henry WU, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr YUEN Mo, Dr TSO WONG Man-yin, Mr LEUNG Chun-ying, Mrs Sophie LEUNG, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TSANG Yok-sing, Mr CHENG Kai-nam, Dr Charles YEUNG, Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr Paul CHENG, Dr TANG Siu-tong, Mr Timothy FOK, Mr KAN Fook-yee, Mr LO Suk-ching, Miss Maria TAM and Mr TAM Yiu-chung voted against the amendment.

Mr HO Sai-chu abstained.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now announce the voting result. There are nine votes in favour of the amendment, 34 votes against it and one abstention. I declare the "noes" have it. I declare the amendment is negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Bruce LIU, since your amendment to clause 3(3) has been negatived by the Committee, the amendment to clause 4 which you have given to move is now inconsistent with the decision already made by the Committee. Thus, according to Rule 57(4) of the Rules of Procedure, I will not allow you to move your amendment to clause 4.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Since Mr Bruce LIU's amendment has been negatived, I now propose the question to you and that is: That the original clause 3(3) stand part of the Bill. 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): Clause 3(4).

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Bruce LIU.

MR BRUCE LIU (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that clause 3(4) be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.

Honourable Members, in regard to this clause, I suggest to delete the proposed clause 2(4), and substitute with a new definition of "national security", which is: "shall be confined to where the territorial integrity and political independence of the People's Republic of China is not to be endangered". Since a debate on a similar topic has already been conducted a moment ago in regard to the amendments moved by Mr CHAN Choi-hi to the Public Order Ordinance, I will not go into any further discussion in this connection and will not claim a division after the voice vote is taken later. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Proposed amendment

Clause 3(4) (see Annex IV)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any member wish to speak?

(No Member responded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr Bruce LIU to clause 3(4) be approved. 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 "noes" have it. The "noes" have it.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Policy Co-ordination, as the amendment moved by Mr Bruce LIU has been negatived, you may now move your amendment to clause 3(4).

SECRETARY FOR POLICY CO-ORDINATION (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that clause 3(4) be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.

Proposed amendment

Clause 3(4) (see Annex IV)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?

(No Member responded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by the Secretary for Policy Co-ordination to clause 3(4) be approved. 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): Clause 3(4) as amended.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): We now vote on the amended clause 3(4). 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): Clause 4.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Policy Co-ordination.

SECRETARY FOR POLICY CO-ORDINATION (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that clause 4 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.

Proposed amendment

Clause 4 (see Annex IV)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?

(No Member responded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by the Secretary for Policy Co-ordination to clause 4 be approved. 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): Clause 4 as amended.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): We now vote on the amended clause 4. 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): Clauses 5, 8, 11, 15, 16, 17 and 19.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Policy Co-ordination.

SECRETARY FOR POLICY CO-ORDINATION (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that clauses 5, 8, 11, 15, 16, 17 and 19 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.

Proposed amendments

Clause 5 (see Annex IV)

Clause 8 (see Annex IV)

Clause 11 (see Annex IV)

Clause 15 (see Annex IV)

Clause 16 (see Annex IV)

Clause 17 (see Annex IV)

Clause 19 (see Annex IV)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?

(No Member responded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendments moved by the Secretary for Policy Co-ordination to clauses 5, 8, 11, 15, 16, 17 and 19 be approved. 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): Clauses 5, 8, 11, 15, 16, 17 and 19 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 Bills

NATIONAL FLAG AND NATIONAL EMBLEM BILL

REGIONAL FLAG AND REGIONAL EMBLEM BILL

SOCIETIES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1997

PUBLIC ORDER (AMENDMENT) BILL 1997

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Council will now resume.

Bills: Third Reading. Secretary for Policy Co-ordination.

SECRETARY FOR POLICY CO-ORDINATION (in Cantonese): Madam President, the

NATIONAL FLAG AND NATIONAL EMBLEM BILL and

REGIONAL FLAG AND REGIONAL EMBLEM BILL

have passed through Committee with amendments. I move that these two Bills be read the Third time and do pass.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the

NATIONAL FLAG AND NATIONAL EMBLEM BILL and

REGIONAL FLAG AND REGIONAL EMBLEM 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): National Flag and National Emblem Bill and Regional Flag and Regional Emblem Bill.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Policy Co-ordination.

SECRETARY FOR POLICY CO-ORDINATION (in Cantonese): Madam President, the

SOCIETIES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1997

has passed through Committee with amendments. I move that this Bill be read the Third time and do pass.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the

SOCIETIES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1997

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): Societies (Amendment) Bill 1997.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Policy Co-ordination.

SECRETARY FOR POLICY CO-ORDINATION (in Cantonese): Madam President, the

PUBLIC ORDER (AMENDMENT) BILL 1997

has passed through Committee with amendments. I move that this Bill be read the Third time and do pass.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the

PUBLIC ORDER (AMENDMENT) BILL 1997

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): Public Order (Amendment) Bill 1997.

MOTION

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): A motion on the appointment of permanent judges of the Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the chief Judge of the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Secretary for Justice.

Appointment of permanent judges of the Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the Chief Judge of the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE (in Cantonese): Madam President, I move that this Council is in support of the proposal to appoint the Honourable Mr Justice Henry LITTON, the Honourable Mr Justice Charles CHING and the Honourable Mr Justice Kemal BOKHARY as permanent judges of the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) and the Honourable Mr Justice Patrick CHAN as the Chief Judge of the High Court of the SAR.

The Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be established on 1 July 1997. Under section 5(1) of the Hong Kong court of Final Appeal Ordinance (HKCFA Ordinance), the Court shall comprise of the Chief Justice and three permanent judges. On 24 May 1997, this council endorsed the appointment of Mr Andrew LI as Chief Justice of the CFA. Today, I seek Members' support for the appointment of Mr Justice Henry LITTON, Mr Justice Charles CHING and Mr Justice Kemal BOKHARY as permanent judges of the CFA and Mr Justice Patrick CHAN as Chief Judge of the High Court.

Background

Article 88 of the Basic Law provides that judges of the SAR shall be appointed by the Chief Executive on the recommendation of an independent commission, that is, the Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission (JORC). The Basic Law further stipulates that judges shall be chosen on the basis of their judicial and professional qualities.

Permanent Judges of the CFA

On 1 July 1997, following the coming into effect of the Basic Law and the HKCFA Ordinance, the Judiciary of the SAR will have three vacancies of permanent CFA judges. The duties of these permanent judges are to hear and rule on civil and criminal appeals within the jurisdiction stipulated in the HKCFA Ordinance.

People who are eligible for appointment as permanent judges include all serving and retired Supreme Court Judges, as well as any barrister or solicitor who has practised in Hong Kong for at least 10 years.

Chief Judge of the High Court

With the establishment of the CFA on 1 July 1997, the title of the present Supreme Court will be changed to the "High Court". The headship of the present Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will then be transferred to the Chief Justice of the CFA, while the judicial duties of the current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will be transferred to a new post of Chief Judge of High Court.

The new Chief Judge of the High Court will have both judicial and administrative duties. On judicial duties, he will assume the duties of the President of the Court of Appeal as stipulated in the law. On administrative duties, as the leader of the retitled High Court, he will be providing judges of the Court of Appeal and the Court of First Instance with Judicial leadership and co-ordinating their work; as well as obtaining and expressing their legitimate concerns. He will also be responsible for ensuring the efficient operation of the High Court and advising the Chief Justice of the CFA on judicial policies and be responsible for the implementation of these policies in respect of the operation and development of the High Court.

Apart from the professional qualifications stipulated in the Supreme Court Ordinance, Article 90 of the Basic Law stipulates that the Chief Judge of the High Court shall be a Chinese citizen who is a permanent resident of the SAR with no right of abode in any foreign country.

The Selection Process

After Members indicated their support for Mr Andrew LI's appointment as Chief Justice of the CFA, the JORC under the chairmanship of the Chief Justice began the selection of the permanent judges of the CFA and the Chief Judge of the High Court. In the selection process, the JORC applied the same conscientious, systematic and thorough attitude it had adopted in the selection of the Chief Justice of the CFA.

In brief, the JORC followed the same process it adopted in respect of the nomination of the Chief Justice of the CFA. The curricular vitae and where supplied, a list of judgements and writings of shortlisted candidates were made available to JORC members. The JORC used as its reference the same set of "Judicial and professional qualities" it adopted for the selection of the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal. It also asked the judges and professional members on JORC to canvass opinions from their own constituencies. In all, the JORC considered over 400 eligible candidates for the posts of permanent judges of the CFA and over 140 eligible candidates for the post of Chief Judge of the High Court.

To avoid conflicts of interest, members of the JORC who might reasonably be regarded as candidates for the judicial posts under consideration had declared their interest, and where they had indicated an interest in taking up the relevant judicial appointment, they had already declared their interest and abstained from the entire deliberation and recommendation process in respect of the posts to which they might be appointed.

The Commission's Recommendations

The JORC has informed the Chief Executive that on 1 July 1997, it will be recommending that:

- Mr Justice Henry LITTON, Mr Justice Charles CHING, and Mr Justice Kemal BOKHARY be appointed permanent judges of the Court of Final Appeal; and

- Mr Justice Patrick CHAN be appointed the Chief Judge of the High Court.

The curriculum vitae of these judges are tabled before Members. The recommendations were made unanimously by the JORC.

Support of Provisional Legislature

Article 90 of the Basic Law requires the Chief Executive to obtain the endorsement of the Legislative Council on the appointment of judges of the CFA and Chief Judge of the High Court of the SAR. In seeking this Council's support for the appointment of the Chief Justice of the CFA, I have spoken on the role of the Council on the endorsement process. There is no need to repeat them on this occasion. In supporting the appointment of the Chief Justice, Members have demonstrated their unequivocal support for not politicizing judicial appointments nor subjugating the Judiciary to the Legislature. As has been demonstrated by the public response to your support for the appointment of the Chief Justice, this in turn has sent positive messages about our determination to uphold the rule of law in Hong Kong.

With Members' support for the proposed appointments, all five key posts in the SAR Judiciary will have been filled by the most capable and suitable candidates. Article 93 of the Basic Law provides that judges and other members of the judiciary serving in Hong Kong before the establishment of the SAR may all remain in employment. Steps are being taken to ensue the continued employment of all serving judges and judicial officers. With their continued service, the SAR Judiciary and indeed Hong Kong's legal system, is not only assured of a smooth transition, it is poised to continue the development of the common law in Hong Kong in the new and challenging era head. I recommend the motion to Honourable Members.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHENG Kai-nam.

MR CHENG KAI-NAM (in Cantonese): Thank you, Madam President. The JORC has already made its recommendations on the appointment of three permanent judges of the CFA and the Chief Judge of the High Court.

How, with the smooth election of the Chief Executive and the Provisional Legislative Council, the appointment of Executive Council Members and government key officials together with the current appointment of judges and the Chief Justice of the CFA in the Judiciary, we can say that the work on forming the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government is basically completed.

I hope that in the limited time before 1 July, the various technicalities relating to the smooth transition of the Judiciary and legal system into the SAR era can be smoothly and successfully completed in the same manner.

I believe that the JORC's recommendations on the appointment of three permanent CFA judges and the Chief Judge of the High Court will ensure the continued development of the common law system in Hong Kong. The judicial system of Hong Kong will thus be able to operate indepently and effectively with impartiality as before.

With these remarks, and on behalf of the Members belonging to the Democratic Alliance for Betterment of Hong Kong, I agree to the recommendations of the JORC. Thank you.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Miss Maria TAM.

MISS MARIA TAM (in Cantonese): Madam President, on behalf of those Members who belong to the Hong Kong Progressive Alliance, I support the motion moved by the Secretary for Justice and endorse the appointment of the three permanent judges of the CFA and the appointment of the Honourable Mr Justice Patrick CHAN as the Chief Judge of the High Court.

The three judges recommended to fill the posts of permanent CFA judges are all talents hard to come by, as evidenced by their curricular vitae given to us. When I returned to Hong Kong in 1974 to take up legal practice, the Honourable Mr Justice Kemal BOKHARY had not practised law in Hong Kong for a very long time. I was very much honoured, because we both worked in Holland House, and we came across each other quite often. As a barrister, Mr BOKHARY already managed to win the acclaim and appreciation of veteran barristers. After he became a judge, and gave up all his duties in the judicial institutions, he again managed to perform brilliantly in the public service which he rendered to the community, particularly in the Independent Adjudication Committee or the Inquiry Committee. As for the Honourable Mr Justice Henry LITTON, apart from the achievements listed in his curriculum viate, he also made one more contribution to Hong Kong. As early as 1974, or even earlier than that, he had already set up his own chamber in Hong Kong. So, not only did he himself practise law, but he also helped to train up a lot of brilliant legal practitioners. The Honourable Mr Justice Charles CHING, the third candidate, is also an excellent barrister. His eloquence and articulation is highly recognized in the legal field. Since all these three judges are of undoubtable integrity, we can rest assured that they will undoubtedly be able to promote judicial independence and the spirit of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong".

Finally, Mr Justice Patrick CHAN. The year when I came back to Hong Kong was 1974. Mr Justice Patrick CHAN also graduated from the Hong Kong University around that time, and he belonged to the second batch, if not the first batch, of the University's law graduates. During that period, I often went to Holland House where I sought enlightenment on law issues and borrowed books from Mr Patrick YU. Mr Patrick CHAN, too, went to Mr Patrick YU's chamber, doing the same thing as I did. Thus, Mr Patrick CHAN is in fact my long-time acquaintance and I know that he is a meticulous, dedicated and profoundly knowledgeable legal practitioner. His appointment to the position of Chief Judge in the High Court of the SAR delights me. However, my congratulations are not confined to him, for I also wish to congratulate all those legal talents who were brought up, educated and trained in Hong Kong. Although his responsibilities are heavy, I have no doubt that he is the most suitable person for this post.

Therefore, on behalf of the Hong Kong Progressive Alliance, I state again that I agree with and support this motion.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I am requested by Honourable Members to read the motion again before inviting Members to speak again. I now read the motion again in order to enable Members to have a clearer idea of the procedures of this debate: That this Council is in support of the proposal to appoint the Honourable Mr Justice Henry LITTON, the Honourable Mr Justice Charles CHING and the Honourable Mr Justice Kemal BOKHARY as permanent judges of the Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the Honourable Mr Justice Patrick CHAN as the Chief Judge of the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

The debate shall now continue. Mrs Miriam LAU.

MRS MIRIAM LAU (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Liberal Party supports the recommendations made by the JORC on the appointments of the Honourable Mr Justice Henry LITTON, the Honourable Mr Justice Charles CHING and the Honourable Mr Justice Kemal BOKHARY as permanent judges to the Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the Honourable Mr Justice Patrick CHAN as the Chief Judge to the High Court of the SAR.

The CFA will be an integral part of the legal system in Hong Kong, since it will replace the Privy Council of the colonial era. With its own court of final appeals, Hong Kong can finally prove that it will possess a genuinely independent judicial system after the transfer of sovereignty.

With the present recommendations on the appointment of permanent judges to the CFA and the earlier appointment of the Chief Justice, the work on appointing permanent judges to the CFA is complete. I believe that in the near future, the CFA can commence its work smoothly. Nevertheless, in the judicial system of Hong Kong, the CFA is still a newly established body. Local judges, including the appointed permanent judges and the Chief Justice, are after all not experienced in hearing and trying CFA cases. Therefore, once the formal operation of the CFA commences, we must promptly and positively consider the possibility of inviting judges from other common law jurisdictions who are experienced in trying final appeal cases to sit on the CFA as non-permanent judges. This arrangement can enable local permanent judges of the CFA to exchange professional expertise with non-permanent judges, and this would enhance their knowledge in dealing with the CFA cases.

That said, I do not have the slightest doubt about the competence of the four appointed judges. In the past, in the course of my legal practice, I did come into contact with them many times. I very much appreciate their unbiased and impartial approach in trying cases. Their determined and devoted efforts of contributing to the Judiciary of Hong Kong deserve my highest esteem. I firmly believe that with their profound legal and judicial experience, they will be able to defend the independence of Hong Kong's judicial system.

All of us naturally expect the CFA to show its independent authority to Hong Kong and the international community as soon as possible. This will very much depend on the performance of CFA judges. So, they really have very heavy responsibilities.

With these remarks, Madam President, I support the motion.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? Mr LEUNG Chun-ying.

MR LEUNG CHUN-YING (in Cantonese): Madam President, since the Preliminary Working Committee under the Preparatory Committee for the Special Administrative Region (SAR) released its recommendation on the composition of the CFA in May 1995, some people in Hong Kong have questioned whether the recommended number of local judges in the CFA is too large and whether local judges would be susceptible to influences from the Central Government of China. At the same time, some people also questioned the judicial competence and experience of local judges. I believe that the recommendations of the JORC contained in the motion set out in the Agenda will dispel all these doubts and worries entirely. I support the appointments recommended by the JORC and also support the proposal of appointing the Honourable Mr Justice Patrick CHAN as the Chief Judge of the High Court of the SAR. These are my remarks. Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?

(No Member responded)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If not, Secretary for Justice, do you wish to reply?

(The Secretary for Justice indicated that she did not wish to reply)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That this Council is in support of the proposal to appoint the Honourable Mr Justice Henry LITTON, the Honourable Mr Justice Charles CHING and the Honourable Mr Justice Kemal BOKHARY as permanent judges of the Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the Honourable Mr Justice Patrick CHAN as the Chief Judge of the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. 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.

NEXT MEETING

PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, I now adjourn the meeting until 9:30 am on Saturday, 21 June 1997.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Four o'clock.

　

Annex I

　

NATIONAL FLAG AND NATIONAL EMBLEM BILL

　

COMMITTEE STAGE

Amendments to be moved by the Director, Chief Executive's Office

　

　

Clause Amendment Proposed

3(1) By deleting "government" and substituting "Government".

3(3) By adding "可使用" before "國徽的其他用途".

5(1) (a) By adding "for flying" after "flag".

(b) By adding "for hanging" after "emblem".

5(3) By deleting ", in special places,".

5(4) In paragraph (a) by deleting "prevent further unauthorized manufacture" and substituting "prohibit the unauthorized manufacture or manufacture of the flag or emblem that does not meet the specifications".

7 By deleting "在公眾場合" and substituting "公開及".

9(1) By adding "觸犯" before "有關" and adding "的規定" after "國徽".

Clause Amendment Proposed

Schedule 1 (a) In the first paragraph, by deleting "件" where it appears twice and substituting "附表".

(b) By adding the following before "Design for making the national flag" -

Schedule 2 by adding after paragraph 5 -

"6. The diameters of the usual dimensions of the national emblem for display or use are as follows:

(a) 100cm

(b) 80cm

(c) 60cm".

　

Annex II

　

REGIONAL FLAG AND REGIONAL EMBLEM BILL

　

　

COMMITTEE STAGE

　

　

Amendments to be moved by the Director, Chief Executive's Office

　

　

Clause Amendment Proposed

5(3) In paragraph (a) by deleting "prevent further unauthorized manufacture" and substituting "prohibit the manufacture of the flag or emblem that does not meet the specifications".

7 (a) By deleting "在公眾場合" and substituting "公開及".

(b) By deleting "liable on conviction to a fine at level 5 and to imprisonment for 3 years." and substituting -

"liable-

(a) on conviction on indictment to a fine at level 5 and to imprisonment for 3 years; and

(b) on summary conviction to a fine at level 3 and to imprisonment for 1 year."

Schedule 1 In the first paragraph, by deleting "件" and substituting "附表".

　

Annex III

　

PUBLIC ORDER (AMENDMENT) BILL 1997

　

COMMITTEE STAGE

　

Amendments to be moved by the Secretary for Policy Co-ordination

Clause Amendment Proposed

2(2) By deleting "freedoms and rights" and substituting "rights and freedoms".

3(1) By deleting "in".

3(2) By deleting "to prevent an imminent threat to" and "in".

4(1) By deleting "in".

4(2) (a) By adding "considers that the interests of" before "public safety or public order".

(b) By adding "reasonably considers that the interests of" before "national".

5 By deleting "in".

7 (a) In proposed section 14(1), by deleting "則他在諮詢保安局局長後，".

Clause Amendment Proposed

(b) In proposed section 14(2) -

(i) by deleting "limited" and substituting "limit specified";

(ii) in paragraph (a) by deleting "反對通知" and substituting "反對遊行通知";

(iii) in paragraph (b) by deleting "the objection" and substituting "objection";

(iv) in paragraph (c) by deleting "the objection" and substituting "objection".

(c) In proposed section 14(3) -

(i) by deleting ", other than held solely for a funeral as referred to in section 13A(1)(a)";

(ii) in paragraph (a) by deleting "反對通知" and substituting "反對遊行通知";

(iii) in paragraph (b) by deleting "反對通知" and substituting "反對遊行通知";

(iv) in paragraph (c) by deleting "反對通知" and substituting "反對遊行通知";

(v) by adding "This subsection does not apply to a procession held solely for a funeral as referred to in section 13A(1)(a)." after paragraph (c).

(d) In proposed section 14(4), by deleting "limited" and substituting "limit specified", and by adding "遊行" after "發布反對".

Clause Amendment Proposed

(e) In proposed section 14(5), by adding "reasonably" before "considers".

8 By deleting "in".

9 In proposed section 16(1)(c), by deleting "反對通知" and substituting "反對遊行通知".

15 By deleting "confirmed" and substituting ", to avoid doubt, adopted as laws of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and continue to have legal effect".

16 Delete Clause 16 and substitute -

"16. Arrangements for public processions from 1 to 9 July 1997

(1) For a notice of intention to hold a public procession during the period from 1 July to 9 July 1997 (both days included) given in writing to the Commissioner of Police before 1 July 1997 in accordance with section 13A -

(a) if the Commissioner of Police notifies a person of conditions imposed under section 15(2) before 1 July 1997, the Commissioner's notice is taken to be a notice of no objection subject to the conditions;

(b) if the Commissioner of Police issues a notice of prohibition for the public procession under section 14 before 1 July 1997, the notice of prohibition is taken to be a notice of objection;

　

Clause Amendment Proposed

(c) if the Commissioner of Police notifies the person giving notice of intention to hold a public procession before 1 July 1997 that the shorter notice is not accepted under section 13A, the Commissioner's notice of his decision is taken to be a notice of objection; and

(d) if the Commissioner of Police does not give notice under paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) for a procession to be held between 1 July and 3 July (both days included), this is taken to be a notice of no objection.

(2) If a public procession takes place during the period from 1 July to 9 July 1997 (both days included) for which a person has not given notice to the Commissioner of Police or for which the Commissioner has not accepted shorter notice, the public procession is taken to be an unauthorized assembly for the purposes of the Public Order Ordinance (Cap. 245).".

　

PUBLIC ORDER (AMENDMENT) BILL 1997

　

　

COMMITTEE STAGE

　

　

Amendments to be moved by Hon CHAN Choi-hi

Clause Amendment Proposed

2(2) In proposed section 2(2), by deleting ""National security" means the safeguarding of the territorial integrity and the independence of the People's Republic of China."."

3(1) (a) By deleting "national security or"

(b) By adding ", or the protection of the People's Republic of China from external military intervention and threat" after "public order (ordre public)".

3(2) (a) By deleting "national security or"

(b) By adding ", or the protection of the People's Republic of China from external military intervention and threat" after "public order (ordre public)".

4(1) (a) By deleting "national security or"

(b) By adding ", or the protection of the People's Republic of China from external military intervention and threat" after "public order (ordre public)".

Clause Amendment Proposed

4(2) (a) By deleting "national security or"

(b) By adding ", or the protection of the People's Republic of China from external military intervention and threat" after "public order (ordre public)".

5(1) (a) By deleting "national security or"

(b) By adding ", or the protection of the People's Republic of China from external military intervention and threat" after "public order (ordre public)".

7 By deleting the proposed section 14 and substituting ─

"14. Power of Commissioner of Police to prohibit public procession

(1) Subject to subsection (4), the Commissioner of Police may prohibit the holding of any public procession if he reasonably considers that such prohibition is necessary in the interest of public safety, public order (ordre public), or the protection of the People's Republic of China from external military intervention and threat, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

(2) If the Commissioner of Police prohibits the holding of the public procession, he shall as soon as is reasonably practicable and within the time limit specified under this Ordinance -

(a) notify in writing the person who gave notice under section 13A or a person named for the purposes of the section 13A(4)(a)(I) of his prohibition and reasons; or

Clause Amendment Proposed

(b) publish a written notice of the prohibition and the reasons in the manner he thinks fit; or

(c) post a written notice of the prohibition and reasons in the place he thinks fit.

(3) The Commissioner of Police shall not issue a notice of prohibition for a public procession, other than one held solely for a funeral as referred to in section 13A(1)(a) -

(a) if notice of a procession is given in accordance with section 13A(1)(b), later than 48 hours before the notified commencement time of the procession;

(b) if shorter notice of 72 hours or more is accepted by the Commissioner of Police under section 13A(2), later than 24 hours before the notified commencement time of the procession;

(c) if shorter notice of less than 72 hours is accepted by the Commissioner of Police under section 13A(2), later than the notified commencement time of the procession.

(4) if the Commissioner of Police considers that interests of public safety, public order, the protection of the People's Republic of China from external military intervention and threat or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others could be met by the imposition of conditions under section 15(2), he shall not exercise the power conferred by subsection (1) to prohibit the holding of a public procession.

Clause Amendment Proposed

8 (a) By deleting "national security or"

(b) By adding ", or the protection of the People's Republic of China from external military intervention and threat" after "public order (ordre public)".

9 By deleting the proposed section 16 and substituting -

"16. Appeals

(1) A person, society, organization -

(a) named in a notice given under section 8 or 13A;

(b) to whom a notice of prohibition is given under section 9; or

(c) to whom a notice of prohibition is given under section 14,

and who is aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioner of Police to prohibit a public meeting, to prohibit a public procession or to impose conditions on the holding of a public meeting or public procession may appeal to an appeal board.

(2) In this section "appeal board" means an appeal board constituted under section 44.".

10 By deleting this clause.

Clause Amendment Proposed

11 By deleting this clause and substituting

"11. Proof

"Section 17F(a) is amended, by adding "or 14" after "section 9".".

12 (a) By deleting "national security or"

(b) By adding ", or protection of the People's Republic of China from external military intervention and threat "after" public order (ordre public)".

13 By deleting this clause.

16 By deleting this clause.

　

Annex IV

　

SOCIETIES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1997

　

　

COMMITTEE STAGE

　

　

Amendment to be moved by Hon Bruce LIU Sing-lee

　

　

Clause Amendment Proposed

3(1) (a) By deleting the definition of "connection" and substituting -

" "connection" (聯繫) in relation to a society or a branch, that is a political body, includes the following circumstances -

(a) if the society or the branch solicits or accepts financial contributions, financial sponsorships or financial support of any kind or loans, directly or indirectly, from a political organization outside Hong Kong; or

(b) if the society or the branch is affiliated directly or indirectly with a political organization outside Hong Kong; or

(c) if the society's or the branch's policies or any of them are determined directly or indirectly by a political organization outside Hong Kong; or

Clause Amendment Proposed

(d) if a political organization outside Hong Kong directs, dictates, controls, or participates, directly or indirectly, in the decision making process of the society or the branch;".

(b) By deleting the definition of "foreign political organization" and "political organization of Taiwan" and substituting -

" "political organization outside Hong Kong" (香港境外政治性組織) includes -

(a) a government or a political subdivision of a government outside Hong Kong; or

(b) an agent of a government or an agent of a political subdivision of a government outside Hong Kong; or

(c) a political party or its branch in a country outside Hong Kong of its agent;".

3(3) By adding-

"(2C) This Ordinance does not apply to any society formed solely for religious, charitable, social or recreational purposes and which consists of not more than 30 persons as its members including its office-bearers.".

Clause Amendment Proposed

3(4) By deleting proposed section 2(4) and substituting-

"(4) Nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed in such a way as to limit or restrict the rights and freedoms provided in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as applied to Hong Kong.

　

(5) In this Ordinance, the expressions "public safety", "public order (ordre public)" and "the protection of rights and freedoms of others" have the same meanings as they have in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as applied to Hong Kong.

(6) Without prejudice to subsection (4), "national security" in this Ordinance shall be confined to where the territorial integrity and political independence of the People's Republic of China is not to be endangered.".

4 By adding -

"5 (3) The requirements under subsections (1) and (2) shall not apply to any society formed solely for religious, charitable, social or recreational purposes and which consists of not more than 30 persons as its members including its office-bearers.".

SOCIETIES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1997

　

　

COMMITTEE STAGE

　

　

Amendments to be moved by the Secretary for Policy Co-ordination

　

　

Clause Amendment Proposed

　

3(1) (a) In paragraph (a) of the definition of "connection", by adding "financial" before "support".

(b) In paragraph (d) of the definition of "connection", by deleting "the management or".

(c) In the definition of "election", by deleting "the Provisional Legislative Council,".

(d) In the definition of "foreign political organization", by deleting "or" at the end of paragraph (a).

3(4) In proposed section 2(4) by deleting "freedoms and rights" and substituting "rights and freedoms".

4 (a) In proposed section 5A(3) -

(i) by deleting "註冊" before "任何", and by adding "註冊"before "或拒絕";

(ii) In paragraph (b), by adding "the" before "branch";

(iii) In paragraph (b), by deleting "and" and substituting "that".

Clause Amendment Proposed

(b) In proposed section 5A(5) by adding "the" before "branch".

(c) In proposed section 5D(1)(b) -

(i) by adding "the" before "branch;

(ii) by deleting "and" and substituting "that".

(d) In proposed section 5F(2)(a) by deleting "or branch".

(e) In proposed section 5F(2)(b) by deleting "or branch".

5(1) (a) In proposed section 8(1)(b), by deleting "and" and substituting "that".

(b) In proposed section 8(1), by deleting "向" and substituting "建議", and deleting "建議" after "局長".

5(6) (a) In paragraph (a), by deleting "a society" and substituting "A society".

(b) In paragraph (b), by deleting "構"中" and substituting "構中"".

8 In paragraph (a), by deleting "has" and substituting "have".

11 In proposed section 15(1A), by adding "入" before "來源", and by deleting "的詳細".

Clause Amendment Proposed

15 (a) By deleting paragraph (b) and substituting -

"(b) by repealing "prejudicial to the security of Hong Kong" and substituting "that makes the prohibition of the operation or continued operation of the society or the branch necessary in the interests of national security".

(b) In the Chinese text, paragraphs (d) and (e) are renumbered as paragraphs (c) and (d).

16 In proposed section 43 by adding "(No. Of 1997)" after "Ordinance 1997".

17 By deleting "confirmed" and substituting", to avoid doubt, adopted as laws of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and continue to have legal effect".

19 (a) by deleting "在 "所適用的社團," 之後, 加入", and substituting "刪去 "保安司" 而代以".

(b) by adding "保安局局長" after "或是".