THE GOVERNMENT insists the consultation on Article 23 legislation is genuine. 'We want to hear the voice of the community,' Solicitor-General Robert Allcock said at a recent forum at the Foreign Correspondents Club.
So far, there has been a uniform message, whether it be from the community at large, from academia, from the legal profession, or from the Legislative Council. It is simply this: Do a second round of consultation early next year by publishing a white bill.
So far, the government has not indicated it is willing to do this. At a meeting of the Legislative Council's joint security and legal panels, Secretary for Security Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee was urged to spell out the actual provisions which the government wishes to enact in a white bill so the public could be properly consulted on the overall proposals.
' What is wrong with the blue colour?' she asked. 'People can read it even if it is printed on blue paper. As for the colour of the paper, I would have thought that the most important thing is the content and not the colour.'
Mrs Ip was being disingenuous. Certainly, she knows there is a difference between a white bill and a blue bill. She was a career civil servant and has been a policy secretary for many years. If there is no difference except for the colour, why is it that the Hong Kong government, both before and after 1997, has from time to time issued blue bills?
Contains actual language