- 16 -
invariably brought about splits, suspicion and disputes. The reasons:
these laws, which are of a constitutional nature, were not enacted by
the local people after thorough deliberation, and no process of consultation was taken. Instead, the British took charge of everything
and presented to the local people an irrevocable fact. The situations
of Hong Kong are entirely different from those of the then African colonies.
Is the political intelligence of the Hong Kong people despised if the
same tactics are to be adopted in Hong Kong?
Section 22 of the Legislative Council (Powers & Privileges)
Bill states that "the powers of the President under this Ordinance shall
be supplementary to any powers conferred on him by Letters Patent or
Royal Instructions". This section in fact brings out the most important
fact, showing a major step in transferring the source of power of the
Hong Kong legislative body from Britain to the President of the Legislative
Council. On such a piece of legislation, which is of a constitutional
nature, the views of the general public should be sought and it should not
be rushed through. All the procedures regarding the passing of the Bill,
however, were completed before 1st July from which day the Basic Law
Drafting Committee started work. It is evident that a power structure was
intended to be established irrevocably. Under the "50-year-no-change"
promise, the power structure thus established will be able to stay on.
Any suggestion by the Chinese side to amend it will be interpreted as
altering the source of power of the existing law, which the British side
can rebut.
The
All in all, the Bill increases the privileges enjoyed by the
President of the Legislative Council. If the Bill was announced too
early, the public would have enough time to discuss and spot the problems
easily. Therefore the Bill was not announced until the last moment.
public firstly noticed the irritating words such as "disrespect" and
"insult" to the Legislative Councillors. The British subsequently deleted
such words to show that "public opinion" was acceded to, but in fact the
most damaging and fundamental clauses remained.