CONFIDENTIAL
(Debate on 11 March, LegCo not representative: appointed members must be replaced by people who represent popular views, chosen by direct elections etc).
4.
Debate on 11 March was a very full one (81⁄2 hours!), reflecting all shades of Hong Kong news on this issue. I have no reason to believe LegCo is anything other than a body that is fully capable of speaking out robustly and vigorously on Hong Kong issues when occasion merits. In any event, Hong Kong people will have full opportunity to express their own views on future constitutional developments in response to Green Paper later this year.
(Inadequate Consultation)
5. Substance of the measure you object to on Hong Kong statute book as regards publications since 1951. The two bills were gazetted 19 December. Extensively discussed between Hong Kong Government and OMELCO. Debate deferred twice at OMELCO's request. Both bills passed by large LegCo majority. Hard to argue that consultation inadequate.
(Delay debate to allow more time for discussion of Administration's amendment published only 5 days before debate)
6. Understand Administration's amendment introduced to improve measure and in response to HKJA representations through Martin Lee. Fully debated on 11 March.
(Why did Hong Kong not accept Mr Martin Lee's amendment?)
6.A Concluded that appropriate safeguards were introduced in the amendment introduced by the Administration.
(Delay debate because great public concern arose only in last few days before 11 March)
7. Hong Kong Government no doubt felt public interest best served by full debate in LegCo. OMELCO clearly agreed. Motion to adjourn debate heavily defeated on 11 March.
(Should have remitted bill for examination by LegCo Select Committee)
8. Not proposed by any LegCo member, so far as I am aware.
CONFIDENTIAL
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.