TNAG-1366-FCO40-1812-Hong-Kong-Legislative-Council-(Powers-and-Privileges)-Bill-1-1985 — Page 43

The essence of the clause is meant to deal with

specific matters such as defence, security or foreign policies

which are outside the competence of Hong Kong.

This has always

the powers of

been the case and will always be so. Of course

LegCo are limited, but the restrictive effect of this clause

bites into a very restricted area. To subscribe to the

validity of the arguments put forward by these prophets of doom

necessitate a big jump from a preposition having a very narrow

perspective to a wide sweeping conclusion based on a groundless

premise. It supposes that the future LegCo will succumb to the

authoritarian chief executive of the SAR who, according to an

Joint Declaration, will be appointed by China after 1997. In

short, the narrow context of the Bill is taken out to be

compared with the much wider context of the Joint Declaration.

Such actions are misleading at best, and the people of H.K.

would do well to ponder on the postulations rationally and

should not be persuaded by dramatic and sensational arguments

to accept questionable logic.

w

However, despite our rejecting the validity of

arguments for dropping Clause 14 (2), it has been thought and

recognised that the real meaning of the clause especially in

relation to the phrase "the responsibility of HMG to Hong Kong"

could be open to misconstruction.

Accordingly, amendments were

amended in the manner as described in my speech at the

Committee Stage of this Bill.

be reassuring.

Such amendments hopefully would