XN000022-1985-04-03 — Page 11

9

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 3. 1985

HE SHARED THE VIEW OF HIS COLLEAGUES THAT THE BILL RAISED A NUMBER OF ISSUES THAT REQUIRED CLARIFICATION.

HE SAID SOME DEFINITIONS IN THE BILL - SUCH AS THE MEANING OF SUBSTANTIAL CONNEXION WITH REGARD TO FUNCTIONAL CONSTITUENCIES WOULD REQUIRE BOTH THE ELECTORATE AND THE ADMINISTRATION TO EXERCISE COMMON SENSE, BUT HE DID NOT BELIEVE THIS WOULD BE A REAL PROBLEM AREA PROVIDED THOSE CONCERNED WERE ADEQUATELY BRIEFED.

HOWEVER HE SAID EVEN CITIZENS WITH COMMON SENSE COULD BE CONFUSED BY THE SPECIAL MEANINGS WORDS OFTEN ACQUIRED IN LEGISLATION.

HE CITED AS AN EXAMPLE THAT BANKERS HAD EXPRESSED CONFUSION AS TO WHETHER THE DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES OF MEMBER BANKS, WHO WOULD BE THE INDIVIDUALS CASTING VOTES ON BEHALF OF CORPORATE BODIES, WOULD QUALIFY TO DO SO IN THE EVENT THEY THEMSELVES - AS INDIVIDUALS HAD BEEN IN HONG KONG FOR LESS THAN SEVEN YEARS.

TO REMOVE ANY DOUBT AND TO HAVE IT ON THE PUBLIC RECORD, HE WISHED THE CHIEF SECRETARY WOULD CONFIRM THAT THE WORD +INDIVIDUAL+ IN SECTION 13(2) MEANT HUMAN BEINGS AND AN INDIVIDUAL ACTING ON BEHALF OF A CORPORATE BODY IN A FUNCTIONAL CONSTITUENCY WAS NOT AN INDIVIDUAL WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 13(2).

CONCLUDING, MR BROWN SAID HE SUPPORTED THIS BILL BECAUSE HE BELIEVED ITS PROVISIONS WOULD BE INTERPRETED WITH COMMON SENSE AND IT WOULD ACHIEVE ITS MAIN PURPOSE OF PROVIDING THE REQUIRED FRAMEWORK FOR INDIRECT ELECTIONS THIS YEAR.

+JUST AS THE FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT ITSELF WILL BE REVIEWED PRIOR TO THE ELECTIONS SCHEDULED FOR 1988, I BELIEVE CONCURRENTLY WITH THAT REVIEW WE SHOULD RE-EXAMINE OUR ELECTORAL PROVISIONS,

+1 AM SURE THAT GIVEN TIME BOTH THE ADMINISTRATION AND MEMBERS OF THIS COUNCIL WILL BE ABLE TO IMPROVE ON THE LEGISLATION WE ARE PUTTING ON THE STATUTE BOOK TODAY, HE SAID.

-

/10