12
I certainly think that the community also recognises that it would be totally wrong of us to provide parliamentary draftsmen to draft legislations for the Shenzhen politicians. So we have to try to deal with these matters in a way which helps meeting Mr Tung's legitimate requirements while at the same time ensuring that the civil service retains its reputation for being politically neutral and meritocratic.
I just want to add a couple of points. It is not unusual for civil servants to be seconded to bodies which take a different line from the government. I don't say that it is a strictly accurate analogy but it is, I think, worth bearing in mind.
And the second point that I wanted to make is that civil servants will still be, of course, obliged to operate according to the high standards of conduct which would have applied if they had not been seconded. They will be expected to abide by the Official Secrets Act, they will be expected to abide by the Civil Service Regulations and so on.
Mr Andrew Cheng (in Chinese): Mr President, it seems to me that Mr Governor fails to provide me with a satisfactory reply. I would like to follow-up. I am not opposing the Hong Kong Government in seconding officials to the Chief Executive designate's office. But if two policies are contradictory to each other, what sort of concrete action could you take? Well, at the very least, would you talk to the Chief Executive designate and reflect your views about the recommendation to restore draconian laws to the Chief Executive?
Governor: I think the Chief Executive designate is very well aware of my views and he heard my views on this human rights legislation for a number of years in the Executive Council. I understand that he is going to give his own thoughts on this issue tonight and I think the whole community will welcome that and will be interested in what he has to say. I hope he has had the benefit, as I have, of reading what some of his friends and acquaintances and colleagues have themselves said on this question, the sagacious advice they have been able to give in the past.
I do think we have got to address one pretty central question. Are Hong Kong's freedoms, civil liberties, after 1997, going to be the same as they are today, yes or no? If the answer to that question is: "Yes, of course they are; don't confuse people, don't worry people." Then why the need for these changes in the law? And why the refusal which is all of apiece with these changes and which raises our anxieties even further why the continuing refusal, to which many honourable members have referred in the past, to accept the reporting obligations to Geneva under the International Covenants? If there is nothing to worry about, why be concerned about reporting?
-