TNAG-0080-FCO40-116-Public-Order-legislation-1967 — Page 106

TO:

HER MAJESTY ELIZABETH THE

2ND BY THE GRACE OF GOD OF THE

UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN

AND NORTHERN IRELAND AND NORTHERN

IRELAND AND OF HER OTHER REALMS

AND TERRITORIES QUEEN, HEAD OF

COMMONWEALTH DEFENDER OF THE

FAITH ETC.

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE REFORM

CLUB OF HONG KONG OF FU HING

BUILDING, 10, JUBILEE STREET,

CENTRAL DISTRICT, HONG KONG.

쉬다

RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH AS FOLLOWS:

1.-

2.-

3.-

4.-

5.-

Your Petitioner comprises over 30,000 full and associated

members of all walks of life in Hong Kong and is one of the biggest

associations in Hong Kong.

Your Petitioner is most disturbed by the Public Order

Ordinance recently passed by the Legislative Council inter alia for the reasons as set out in Appendix I and II to this Petition.

Your Petitioner consider that a definite distinction should

be made between Emergency Regulations designed to meet an emergency and the ordinary law of the land applicable in normal times.

Although the Bill was technically published in the Hong Kong Government Gazette 5 weeks and 5 days before it became law, it was only brought to the public's attention on the first reading before the Legislative Council. That is two weeks before the second and third readings which were read and passed on the same day.

If the Legislative Council went into Committee at all (which is not clear), it certainly was not a consideration clause by clause which would have required many hours of deliberation.

6.-

In fact, not only where there were not more than 2 weeks between the first and second and third readings, but that 2 weeks coincided with Re-

membrance Day and a public holiday on the following day. The Attorney General said in the Legislative Council that the bill had been 2 years

in preparation. In Your Petitioner's submission it is stamp-peding the bill through, to only giving the public 2 weeks in which to protest and to organise opposition to a draft that has necessitated 2 years in preparation. Attached as Appendix III and Iv are typical newspaper editorials and as Appendix V is an article which shows that at least some lawyers are also against the present Ordinance; together these extracts are from 3 of the 4 English language newspapers in Hong Kong

which tend to be more careful in their criticisms of the Government

than the Chinese press.