Reference
CONFIDENTIAL
3. A further worrying aspect of HK's arguments is that according to their understanding of the concept of "security", their amended powers would be broad enough to ban even a purely local society on the grounds that its existence would "damage relations with China". There is no basis whatever in the Ordinance itself for distinguishing between societies with and without overseas affiliations. If the HKG were known to take the view that security considerations can be extended to accommodate Chinese disapproval of a society, I do not see how they could resist pressure to ban purely local societies as well. They would not be able credibly to use the argument that the legal powers do not exist. HK seem to acknowledge this point in paragraph 8 of TUR.
4. We will need to ensure that, in their eagerness to reassure the Chinese, HKG do not overstate the effect of their amended powers. I see no reason why they should not say that they will "continue to allow us to prohibit a society which is affiliated to or connected with an organisation of a political nature outside HK where we judge that its activities would threaten HK's security" (TUR, paragraph 8), provided that they offer no elaboration of the meaning of "security".
As regards the draft Societies (Amendment) Bill itself, I have a number of miscellaneous drafting comments, as follows.
5.
...
I.
6. The penalties provided for the various offences appear to be fixed rather than maximum limits at the top of a discretionary scale. For example, section 5(3) provides that for non-notification a person is liable to "a fine of $10,000 and to imprisonment for 3 months and to a fine of $200 for each day during which the failure continues
These provisions would in my view be much more reasonable if they allowed judicial discretion up to a maximum. For example, section 5(3) would read: "a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 3 months or both and to a fine not exceeding $200.... This comment applies to all the new offences created by the new provisions as well as those in the existing Ordinance which are to remain.
7.
•
Section 5A sets out lengthy provisions on the issue of certificates to rural societies, but it is unclear what the purpose of such certificates is. Is it simply, in conjunction with section 8(d), to prevent societies which are not "rural committees" from describing themselves as such? How is the Notification Officer to judge, when no definition is provided?
The power in section 8 (3) appears to duplicate the power in section 8(2) read together with section 8(1)(b).
8.
9.
Section 17(1) and (3) sub-section (2) applies to intended? If so, the word
now apply only to triads, but "any unlawful society". Is this "further" in line 4 should be deleted.
Will Banelf-
Jill Barrett
CODE
18-77
FIFABN
CONFIDENTIAL