TNAG-0080-FCO40-116-Public-Order-legislation-1967 — Page 112

•

APPENDIX IV

WHERE DELAY MIGHT HAVE HELPED

TH

HE Attorney General, Mr D. T. E. Roberts, must be complimented for replying to various criti- cisms of the Public Order Bill, which passed through all stages in Legco on Wednesday. What is harder to understand is why the Bill had to be dealt with on Wednesday and why the Unofficials had apparently nothing more to say about it publicly than "Aye" when the vote was put. The answer to the last question given by one Unofficial was that there was nothing con- troversial about it. Does this mean that the Unofficials rise only when they have something critical to say? It is, after all, an important public measure designed to ensure the peace and good order of the colony during a period of protracted strife and from the silence of the Unofficials, members of the public could be pardoned for thinking that the measure had not been considered by them at all. Mrs Ellen Li Shu-pui subsequently dis- closed that it had, as indeed all legislation is, but it would have been politic on this occasion, if at least one Unofficial had got on to his feet and announced this and that the Bill had been found acceptable in every way. Instead we were treated not only to silence but the unedifying spectacle of one Unofficial being quoted in a sister newspaper as saying

that he had not had time to study it. How incidentally did he vote?

It can be argued that the most sweeping criticism of the Bill came from a pre- dictably and incorrigibly hostile source. To this ex- tent it was inevitable. But whether six weeks was long enough for all interested in the measure to consider it is doubtful. It would have been a welcome gesture if Government had announced that in order to hear the views of all a short post- ponement would be granted. This would not in any way have jeopardised the mea- sure, nor, because many of the provisions are already in force, could it be argued that delay would expose the colony and its people to danger. It would be too much to hope that a "con- sensus" of local opinion could be achieved on a measure of this kind, but it is important for responsible professional bodies to make their views known. The fact that the Bill has taken two years to draft and has been twice referred to the Secretary of State in London is evidence of Gov- ernment's concern to ensure fair play. It would have been even better and a more striking rebuttal of criticism

if Government could have announced that the local legal profession, or im- portant elements of it, shared this view.

5