XN000022-1985-05-01 — Page 20

!

D

1.

1, 1985

18

NEED FOR ALTERNATIVE OATH EXPLAINED

* * *

IT WAS NECESSARY TO HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE OATH WHICH COULD BE TAKEN BY ANY MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL WHO DID NOT WISH TO TAKE THE OATH OF ALLEGI ANCE, AS HONG KONG WAS MOVING TOWARDS MORE REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT, THE SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AND INFORMATION, THE HON PETER TSAO, SAID TODAY.

+

HE WAS MOVING THE SECOND READING OF THE OATHS AND DECLARATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1985 IN THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

+THE NEW ALTERNATIVE OATH WILL BE KNOWN AS THE LEGISLATI VE COUNCIL OATH, THE FORM OF WHICH IS SET OUT IN CLAUSE 5 OF THE BILL AS A NEW PART IV A IN THE SECOND SCHEDULE TO THE PRINCIPAL ORDINAN CE,+ HE SAID.

+CLAUSE 2 OF THE BILL ADDS THE NEW OATH TO THE LIST OF OATHS DEALT WITH IN THE ORDINANCE.

+CLAUSE 3 AMENDS THE ORDINANCE SO THAT A MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL WILL HAVE A CHOICE TO TAKE EITHER THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE OR THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OATH.

+ CLAUSE 4 HAS THE EFFECT OF RELIEVING A MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL FROM THE REQUIREMENT TO TAKE EITHER THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE OR THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OATH IF HE HAS TAKEN EITHER OATH ON PREVIOUS APPOINTMENT TO THE COUNCIL, HE SAID.

SUBJECT TO THE BILL BEING PASSED, MR TSAO SAID, CONSEQUENTIAL CHANGES TO THE STANDING ORDERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL WOULD BE MADE BEFORE THE END OF THIS SESSION.

MR TSAO SAID THAT ON APPOINTMENT A MEMBER OF THE

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, WHETHER OFFICIAL OR UNOFFICIAL, TAKES AN OATH OF ALLEGIANCE UNDER WHICH HE SWEARS THAT HE +WİLL BE FAITHFUL AND BEAR TRUE ALLEGIANCE TO HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH THE SECOND, HER HEIRS AND SUCCESSORS, ACCORDING TO LAW,+

IN THE CONTEXT OF MOVING TOWARDS MORE REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT, HE SAID, RETENTION OF THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENT TO TAKE THIS OATH IN ITS PRESENT FORM MIGHT BE UNDESIRABLE.

HOWEVER, MR TSAO SAID, IT WAS PROPOSED THAT MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE REQUIRED TO TAKE THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE ON FIRST APPOINTMENT TO THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL IF HE HAD NOT TAKEN IT BEFORE, EVEN THOUGH HE MIGHT HAVE TAKEN THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OATH.

+NO CHANGE IS PROPOSED TO THAT PART OF THE PRINCIPAL ORDIN AN CE WHICH PROVIDES THAT AN AFFIRMATION IS PERMITTED IN LIEU OF AN OATH,+ HE SAID.

DEBATE ON THE BILL WAS ADJOURNED.

/19

Page 20Page 21