1
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1991
CS ON COURT OF FINAL APPEAL
*
FORD,
FOLLOWING IS A SPEECH BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, THE HON SIR DAVID ON THE MOTION DEBATE ON THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL, IN THE
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL TODAY (WEDNESDAY).
MR DEPUTY PRESIDENT,
IN A FEW MOMENTS MEMBERS WILL BE ASKED TO VOTE ON THIS MOTION. MANY COGENT AND DIFFERING ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN PUT BY MEMBERS IN THE COURSE OF THIS DEBATE. IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THERE ARE STRONGLY HELD VIEWS ON BOTH SIDES. I SINCERELY HOPE THAT MEMBERS, HAVING LISTENED TO WHAT HAS BEEN SAID, WILL BE PREPARED TO CONSIDER THEIR POSITIONS IN THE LIGHT OF THOSE COMMENTS. THIS HAS BEEN A REAL DEBATE; IT WOULD BE VERY SAD IF ALL MEMBERS HAD COME INTO THIS CHAMBER AT 2.30 THIS AFTERNOON WITH CLOSED MINDS AND A FIRM DECISION AS TO HOW THEY WERE GOING TO VOTE.
I KNOW THAT SOME MEMBERS ARE CONCERNED THAT THEIR CREDIBILITY WOULD BE DAMAGED IN THE EYES OF THE PUBLIC, AND THE MEDIA, IF THEY WERE TO VOTE DIFFERENTLY TODAY FROM THE WAY THEY VOTED DURING THE IN- HOUSE MEETING SOME FIVE WEEKS AGO. BUT TIME AND EVENTS HAVE MOVED ON; A WEEK IS A LONG TIME IN POLITICS; THE FIVE WERKS SINCE THE IN-HOUSE DISCUSSION IS A LIFETIME, AND I ASK MEMBERS TO CONSIDER TWO IMPORTANT POINTS.
FIRSTLY, THE SITUATION HAS BECOME MUCH CLEARER SINCE THAT FIRST IN-HOUSE VOTE WAS TAKEN. THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT HAS FORMALLY STATED THAT A RE-NEGOTIATION OF THE AGREEMENT IN THE JLG IS NOT POSSIBLE. CLEARLY, ANY THINKING PERSON WOULD ACCEPT THAT IT IS ENTIRELY REASONABLE FOR ANY MEMBER OF THIS COUNCIL TO TAKE THAT FACTOR INTO ACCOUNT IN CONSIDERING THE ISSUES TODAY. GOOD POLITICIANS KNOW THAT POLITICS IS THE ART OF THE POSSIBLE, AND I BELIEVE THAT THE PEOPLE HONG
OF
KONG WOULD EXPECT US TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF WHAT IS ACHIEVABLE AND WHAT IS PRACTICABLE IN TRYING TO TAKE THIS MATTER FORWARD.
SECONDLY, I THINK THAT MANY MEMBERS ARE INCLINED TO VOTE FOR THE MOTION SINCE IT IS VERY SIMILAR TO THAT AGREED BY THE IN-HOUSE MEETING. "HOW CAN WE NOT VOTE FOR IT?", SOME PEOPLE SAY, "IT'S AS WHOLESOME AS MOTHERHOOD OR SLICED-BREAD." BUT TODAY, MR IP HAS SPELT OUT THE IMPLICATIONS OF VOTING FOR HIS MOTION. HE CERTAINLY DOES NOT INTEND TO OFFER MEMBERS A SOFT OPTION, WHAT HE IS SAYING IS THAT THE AGREEMENT REACHED IN THE JOINT LIAISON GROUP MUST BE REOPENED то ACHIEVE MORE FLEXIBILITY, AND IF THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE, HE BELIEVES MOST STRONGLY THAT IT IS BETTER NOT TO HAVE A COURT ESTABLISHED AHEAD OF 1997 THAN TO ACCEPT THE ARRANGEMENTS WHICH HAVE BEEN AGREED IN THE JOINT LIAISON GROUP. SO MR IP IS COMMITTED TO AN ALL OR NOTHING APPROACH; MORE FLEXIBILITY OR NO COURT BEFORE 1997. AND THAT IS WHY HE HAS AMENDED HIS MOTION TO DELETE THE REFERENCE TO THE SETTING UP OF A COURT BY 1993.
/LET ME