XN000022-1997-01-30 — Page 5

-

There is another problem which has not yet been addressed in this one-sided debate. The laws in question do not only affect civil liberties. If implemented, the proposals would also cause collateral damage on many other fronts, for example in the SARG's ability to combat organised crime. The Societies (Amendment) Ordinance stiffened the previous penalties for various triad offences. If the old Ordinance is, as apparently intended, reinstated, the earlier penalties would apply. The only winner from such a manoeuvre would be the triads. There is no sign that any attempt has been made to think through these and other very important side effects of the proposals. Nor is there any explanation, for example, of why it is necessary, by repealing the Ordinance under which it was established, to scrap the Boundaries and Election Commission, a body which has established a world class reputation for the impartial, efficient and vigilant supervision of Hong Kong's electoral process. Whatever electoral procedures apply in future, Hong Kong needs such a body.

If there is no legal justification in Hong Kong terms for the recommendations, are they at least necessary to ensure stability and order in Hong Kong? Patently not. Hong Kong is among the safest, most stable, most law abiding communities in the world. That is because our laws and culture of government have found a reasonable, decent, balance between the rights of the individual and the interests of society at large. A balance which has been struck and adjusted over the years in response to the evolving demands and aspirations of this dynamic community, not in response to outside dictates. To turn the clock back for reasons of misguided political expediency will upset that balance, unsettle the community, and create unnecessary and serious problems for the SARG. It also risks radicalising the hitherto extremely moderate debate in Hong Kong. Is that really what the Sub Group wants?

Not only in Hong Kong have people been expressing concerns of this kind. These recommendations have given Hong Kong's future a bad press all around the world. It has been said, absurdly, that we should not worry unduly about that, and that foreigners should refrain from speaking their minds about Hong Kong. Hong Kong is an international city. One of our greatest strengths has been the willingness of our partners to believe in "one country, two systems" and to do what they can to make it work. If they stop believing, no amount of self belief here in Hong Kong will be enough. We need investors, governments, columnists around the world to give Hong Kong the benefit of the doubt, or the world will simply stop treating Hong Kong as autonomous, whether we like it or not. And like it or not, Hong Kong is now in the international spotlight. Those taking decisions about our future must ensure that all their actions withstand the unforgiving scrutiny which we can now expect.