XN000022-1997-01-25+26 — Page 9

8. 8

—

-

It is one of the most moderate, stable and reasonable societies on the planet. You only have to spend a few days in Hong Kong to see that - or to watch the evening news and compare what happens here with events elsewhere in the world. Has that stability and moderation been enhanced or undermined since the Bill of Rights was enacted in 1991 and amendments made to some of our laws such as the Public Order Ordinance - to bring them into line with it? You know the answer to that question, and so does the rest of the world. Let me be more specific. There has been an increase in the number of public meetings and processions over the last decade. But this doesn't seem to have affected our economy which has doubled in size, or our crime levels which have fallen. And, of course, the overwhelming majority the overwhelming majority - were held in an orderly and peaceful manner. Last year out of the 175 demonstrations held outside the New China News Agency in Happy Valley, there wasn't a single arrest and not one prosecution. Not, in my view, proof of a society where public order is in jeopardy or individual rights ride rough shod over the good of the community at large. Further evidence of the maturity and sophistication of this community, this community which cherishes its freedoms and recognises the link between those political freedoms and its economic success. To those who insist we need to turn the clock back, to walk back in time and reinstate laws that are obsolete, at odds with our international commitments, and fly in the face of the way this society operates today, I say why? Why is this necessary? Where is the operational need? And if, as we are told, those steps are minor, then why take them if they generate, as they certainly appear to do, considerable unease and hostility within our community not to mention - a pretty poor press for Hong Kong overseas?

-

Let's just look for a moment at the case which is being made for these changes. It begins with the proposition that the existing laws on civil liberties are somehow against the Basic Law. What is missing is any serious explanation of exactly where these infringements are to be found. Why? Because - not just in my opinion, but in the opinion of virtually the entire legal establishment in Hong Kong including the Bar Association, the Law Society and even some members of the National People's Congress, the Preparatory Committee and the Provisional Legislature the laws concerned are actually, in their current forms, entirely consistent with the Basic Law.

-

But what if one of our laws is inconsistent with the Basic Law? What should be done about such a clash? It would obviously be pretty important to show that any adjustment proposed was itself justifiable in terms of the Basic Law. But in the case of these ordinances, that is patently not the case. The suggestion is that we put back on to the statute book laws which have clearly been shown to contravene not only the Bill of Rights but also the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which is itself solemnly and fully enshrined in Article 39 of the Basic Law.