-E-
To be sure, clause 14(2) can only refer to the years 1985-1997 but this is no consola- tion. The record already shows that China lends to construe sovereignty in terms of Beijing having the same powers and privi- leges which London, once enjoyed.
The Sino-British Joint Declaration, after all, was silent on the precise fuure relation-. ship between the China-appointed executive and the elected legislature.
(lause 74(2) could be used to usher in complete subordination of the legislature to the executive, and to ensure that Hongkong's de facto system of bureaucratic authoritarian- ism extends itself indefinitely.
·
All told, clause 142) suggests that not merely history, but the Legco Bill itself could be turned on its head.
The Bill giveth powers to Legco, but it also taketh away.
Hongkong's legislature could end up as merely a consultative council which is what it has seemed to be during the passage of this Bitt.
To come back to Mr Linton's point. Legco didn't initiate this Bill for uself, it came from the bureaucracy.
As several crites suggest, the philosophy behind the Bill has been poorly articulated and insufficiently clarified.
The idea of consensus polities for Hong- kong has not been served. A great opportuni- ty is being lost
Clause 1412) and other provisions relate 10 Legislative zammittees. In some parlia- ments, notabi; the US congress, such com- miitoes do much valuable work. Hongkong- 100. might like to develop a committee sys- tem which would help to better understand itself and its CIFCUMSTANICES.
The need for such a beuer understanding has been vividly, but sadly, focused by the Legco Bill.
-End-
i
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.