ARTICLE 23 PROPOSALS AMBIGUOUS AND CONFUSING
The public consultation period for the government's Article 23 proposals ended on December 24.
The government now has to decide on whether it should publish a white or blue bill with amendments.
As a layman in legal matters, I have felt confused when trying to follow the arguments of the two camps, which seem to be polarised. Both sides seem to have given legitimate interpretations on the necessity of choosing the white bill and the blue bill respectively.
As I understand it, given the requirements laid down in the Basic Law, we cannot argue against the need for national security legislation. What is controversial is the ambiguity of some statements relating to the proposed legislation.
Though it is impossible for any law to include rules that could deal with every possible situation that arises, it is still vital for our lawmakers to ensure that the rules are worded as clearly and precisely as possible.
This will minimise the possibility of the laws being exploited.
If the proposals are precise and clear, the controversy over whether to have a white or blue bill may be resolved.
ANDY SETO WOOD-HUNG
North Point
