TNAG-0080-FCO40-116-Public-Order-legislation-1967 — Page 114

6

DIB. 15/11/67

PUBLIC ORDER BILL, 1967

Attorney General Corrects Misconceptions About Bill

The Attorney General, Mr. D.T.E. Roberts said today (Wednesday)

that there was widespread belief that the Public Order Bill, 1967 was a

hasty measure, which had been hurri odly compiled and was the product of

the disturbances which had affected Hong Kong during this year.

Moving the second and third readings of the Public Order Bill,

1967, in the Legislative Council this afternoon, Mr. Roberts said that since the first publication of this Bill on October 6 there had been a certain

amount of comment in the press on its provisions.

"I should like to take this opportunity to deal with some of the

arguments which have been advanced and to try to correct misconceptions

which appear to have been formed by some readers of the Bill."

In fact, he said, active work on the preparation of a Bill of this

nature had been in progress for at least two years.

#

"Certainly, there have been alterations to the Bill to take into account the experience of the past few months, he said, "but the bulk of it is composed of provisions which are necessary in any country at any time."

The Attorney General said that one commentator, who described the

Bill as a backward piece of colonialism drawn from the former Colonies of Africa, had perhaps been misled by the comparative table attached to the Bill into thinking that clauses which were attributed to African countries

were not to be found elsewhere.

"The majority of those clauses, however, is based upon similar

It is merely provisions taken from English Acts or from the Common law. because the wording of the Bill follows that of an African Ordinance more

/closely