11
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 1985
+SUCH A POSTULATION IS IN OUR VIEW BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE EITHER NOW OR IN FUTURE WOULD NECESSARILY BE AN AUTHORITARIAN CREATURE AND THAT HE OR SHE WOULD CRAVE FOR A SUBORDINATED LEGISLATURE.
+WE BELIEVE IT WAS FURTHER PRESUMED THAT THE FUTURE ELECTED LEGISLATURE WILL BE QUITE CONTENT TO BE SUBJECTED TO SUCH SUBORDINATION.
+BOTH ASSUMPTIONS, THOUGH UNDERSTANDABLY INTELLECTUALLY, WOULD IN PRACTICE NOT HOLD TRUE IN HONG KONG ESPECIALLY IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT BOTH CHINA AND BRITAIN HAVE DISPLAYED TREMENDOUS EFFORTS AND SINCERITY IN REACHING AN AGREEMENT TO PRESERVE HONG KONG'S STABILITY AND PROSPERITY, HE SAID.
+OF COURSE ONE IS ENTITLED TO DOUBT, MAY BE EVEN FOREVER, BRITAIN'S AND CHINA'S TRUE INTENTIONS TOWARDS HONG KONG, YET IF ONE IS REALLY SO SCEPTICAL OF THE SINO-BRITISH JOINT DECLARATION ABOUT HONG KONG THEN NO AMENDMENT OR DELETION OF ANY CLAUSE CAN SATISFY THAT INHERENT STUBBORN DISTRUST, HE ADDED.
THE ESSENCE OF THE CLAUSE, HE OBSERVED, WAS MEANT TO DEAL WITH SPECIFIC MATTERS SUCH AS DEFENCE, SECURITY OR FOREIGN POLICIES WHICH WERE OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF HONG KONG,
+THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE AND WILL ALWAYS BE SO.
+OF COURSE THE POWERS OF LEGCO ARE LIMITED, BUT THE RESTRICTIVE EFFECT OF THIS CLAUSE BITES INTO A VERY RESTRICTED AREA,+ HE SAID.
HE ADDED THAT TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE VALIDITY OF THE ARGUMENTS PUT FORWARD BY THESE PROPHETS OF DOOM NECESSITATED A BIG JUMP FROM A PRESUPPOSITION HAVING A VERY NARROW PERSPECTIVE TO A WIDE SWEEPING CONCLUSION BASED ON A GROUNDLESS PREMISE.
+ IT SUPPOSES THAT THE FUTURE LEGCO WILL SUCCUMB TO THE AUTHORITARIAN CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE SAR WHO, ACCORDING TO THE JOINT DECLARATION, WILL BE APPOINTED BY CHINA AFTER 1997.
+IN SHORT, THE NARROW CONTEXT OF THE BILL IS TAKEN OUT TO BE COMPARED WITH THE MUCH WIDER CONTEXT OF THE JOINT DECLARATION.
+SUCH ARGUMENT ARE MISLEADING AT BEST, AND THE PEOPLE OF HONG KONG WOULD DO WELL TO PONDER ON THE POSTULATIONS RATIONALLY AND SHOULD NOT BE PERSUADED BY DRAMATIC AND SENSATIONAL ARGUMENTS TO ACCEPT QUESTIONABLE LOGIC, HE SAID.
HOWEVER, DESPITE THE IR REJECTING THE VALIDITY OF ARGUMENTS FOR DROPPING CLAUSE 14(2), MR CHEONG SAID IT HAD BEEN THOUGHT AND RECOGNISED THAT THE REAL MEANING OF THE CLAUSE ESPECIALLY IN RELATION TO THE PHRASE +THE RESPONSIBILITY OF HMG TO HONG KONG+ COULD BE OPEN TO MISCONSTRUCTION.
/ACCORDINGLY, AMENDMENTS