UMELCO supporting the objective of the Bill while requesting changes to certain provisions. In order to meet with the Administration and consider possible amendments, it was decided that the Second Reading should be deferred to 12.6.85, and Committee Stage and Third Reading to 26.6.85.
In the fortnight before the rescheduled Second Reading, 11 more representations were received from various groups and individuals, including lawyers, journalists, students, District Board members, Urban Councillors and pressure groups. Their major objections were:
(i) The provision for regulating admittance of 'strangers' to the Council's precincts could be construed as a restriction of the public's right to observe the proceedings of LegCo.
(ii) Too much power was vested in the President of the Council, for example, in expelling strangers and in deciding whether a witness could be excused from answering a question when giving evidence to the Council or a committee.
(iii) The 'usage and practice' of LegCo in respect of summonsing evidence should be clearly spelt out.
(iv) The wording of one clause (Clause 16(2)) might have the undesirable effect of giving immunity to a witness who had committed a crime and disclosed it in his evidence before the Council.
(v) The penalty provisions for 'intentional disrespect' and defamatory publications could be subject to abuse and were a potential threat to the freedom of speech.
Concern was also expressed over the lack of well established safeguards, such as a rules committee or parliamentary conventions, against any possible abuse of powers and privileges. The lawyers' groups, in particular, voiced objections to the exclusion of the courts' jurisdiction in respect of the exercise of power vested in the Council, the President or such officers under this Bill or Standing Orders.
The LegCo Ad Hoc Group on this Bill held a total of 15 meetings between 24.5.85 and 12.6.85 to hear representations, to hold in-house deliberations and to discuss with the Administration. It was agreed that since the major
criticisms could be met by amending the relevant provisions, the Second Reading at which the general principles and merits of the Bill was to be debated should take place on 12.6.85.
Twelve Unofficial Members spoke at the debate. The Convener of the Ad Hoc Group, Miss Maria TAM, said that the Bill was a codification of existing common law and parliamentary practice which could be or had been extended to the Hong Kong legislature under the doctrine of 'inherent necessity'. Such legislation was necessary in view of the development towards a more open and representative government and the future change in sovereignty over Hong Kong. She believed that most of the complaints could be dealt with by the various proposed amendments. She also stressed that the decision to go ahead with the Second Reading was made not out of insensitivity to public calls for deferment but out of a determination to firmly steer the Bill through differences of opinions and strike a balance between legislating for an effective and strong LegCo and accommodating the concerns of the public and the media over their freedoms.
Speaking in support of the Second Reading, Miss Lydia DUNN said as Hong Kong was moving towards a legislature 'constituted by elections' enjoying a high degree of autonomy, legislators had to feel free to speak their minds and this right should be clearly stated in the law. She considered these principles sound, reasonable and timely, and criticisms of particular aspects of the Bill could be dealt with at the Committee Stage.
Also speaking in favour of the Bill were Mr S L CHEN and Dr Francis TIEN. They said that subject to the proposed amendments, they were satisfied that the Bill was no more than a codification of existing powers and privileges of the Council.
Indicating his intention to move amendments to improve Clauses 13 and 14, Dr HO Kam-fai pointed out that the power to call witnesses to give evidence before the Council and its committees had been laid down in the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance and Standing Orders for many years. It was now necessary to lay down exactly the powers and privileges pertaining to evidence
and formally build up the Council's own tradition.
Regarding the reference to ‘usage and practice', Mr Andrew SO said that there should be some flexibility and that questions should be determined either in accordance with past usage and practice or by resolution of the Council.
As the underlying principle of the Bill was to codify the law, Mr J J Swaine said that Clause 24 in its original form was open to objection as going beyond that mandate and placing the Legislative Council above the law. Because the Council was not a sovereign body, the immunity from judicial enquiry it possessed was limited to those powers and privileges necessary for the proper functioning of the legislature. An amendment would be made to the effect that the courts' jurisdiction was excluded only in respect of the lawful exercise of the powers conferred by the Bill or Standing Orders.
Mrs Selina CHOW spoke on two of the most controversial provisions, i.e. 'intentional disrespect' and 'defamatory and unauthorised publications'. Sharing the grave reservations of the press and public over possible restrictions on the freedom of speech, she said that Clauses 17 (d) and 20 should be deleted altogether.
Addressing the comments on the proposed regulation of admittance of strangers, Mr CHAN Ying-lun said he considered it both legitimate and constructive for the interested groups to call for a redraft of Clause 8. He would propose an amendment to state that Council sittings should be open to the public and the right of the public to enter the Chamber should be subject to Standing Orders or any resolution of the Council. To avoid arbitrariness, the President's power of removal should be limited to security and other administrative purposes.
Responding to the criticism that the wording of Clause 16 might give immunity from legal proceedings to a witness for a crime which he had disclosed in his evidence before the Council, Mrs Pauline NG said the clause should be amended to provide that such evidence could not be used against a witness in court, but he might still be prosecuted if there was other evidence.
18
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.