XN000022-1996-12-04 — Page 6

4

If the Chinese side were able to agree to our view, then we would together have contributed much towards a smooth transition and allayed the concerns of Hong Kong people. Unfortunately, we have not been able to reconcile these two viewpoints. It has recently become clear that we will not be able to reach consensus in the JLG. Given the need to respond to the concerns of the community, we have come to the view that we must take steps to fulfil our public commitments by introducing this Bill into the Legislative Council.

The Bill amends parts I and II of the Crimes Ordinance. The changes are described in detail in the Legislative Council brief. The two most important changes

are-

(a)

first, we have added the offences of secession and subversion which are not currently defined in the Crimes Ordinance; and

(b)

secondly, we have modified the offences concerning seditious activities to reflect the position at common law, that there must be an intention of causing violence or creating public disorder or a public disturbance, by reference to which the existing statute law would, we believe, be interpreted in any event.

The remainder of the Bill is largely aimed at amending the existing legislation to allow for easy adaptation, and to remove duplication of powers appearing in other laws.

We have carefully examined the Bill to ensure that it is consistent with the Joint Declaration, the Basic Law, the Bill of Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as applied to Hong Kong. We are not introducing a Bill which is in breach of either the Joint Declaration or the Basic Law, or any of these other documents.

We have attempted to define, in the Bill, the concepts of secession and subversion in the language of the common law. We hope that the debate in this Council, and more generally in the community, would shed light on whether the definitions we have proposed are reasonable and workable, and does not unnecessarily restrict the freedom of expression. That debate will be of particular value, whether or not the future Hong Kong SAR legislature chooses to leave unchanged the substance of the Crimes Ordinance as amended, or chooses to alter it in any way. If it chooses the latter course, it would of course have to explain to the people of Hong Kong why that would be in their interest.