The Government's decision to try to push through more than 24 pieces of legislation before the provisional legislature is disbanded in April is a high-risk strategy, which could possibly lay it open to further legal challenge, with all the disruption that would entail. After the handover, when the Court of Appeal ruled that the PLC was legally constituted, it also found that there were strict limits to its powers. The interim body could only enact laws which were 'indispensable' to the functioning of the Government.
Since July, 17 bills have been passed in the council, and four more are still being scrutinised. Now a further 20 pieces of legislation are being put before provisional legislators. Among them are some contentious issues, including the Bill of Rights ordinance, which has already proved to be a source of considerable public concern. And there are other bills which, regardless of their importance, lack any convincing claims to urgency. Whatever the Government says to the contrary, this move can clearly be seen as a bid to get certain laws on the statute book before Hong Kong goes to the polls and elects a more independently minded legislature.
Can the public really be expected to accept that the Building Management (Amendment) Bill is vital to the running of the SAR when it merely involves renovation and decoration of the common parts of buildings? Will the operation of the civil service be impaired if the bill to improve the collection of air passenger departure tax is delayed until after May? Or if the definition of 'airport' is not established until then? The Deputy Director of Administration, Paul Tang Kwok-wai, denied that the Government regarded the PLC as a rubber-stamp body. In the same breath, he admitted that as the interim council agreed to freeze the Bill of Rights, the Government also wished that members would support their amendment.
The implication is plain. The amendments are not expected to have such an easy passage through a more democratically elected assembly, and the Government's first concern is administrative convenience.
Once again, it is necessary to repeat that if attempts are made to table bills which are not indispensable to the normal functioning of the SAR, the PLC will be acting beyond its powers, and that could lead the courts to strike down the laws which it passes.
The PLC has had a relatively easy ride in the past six months, but the Government should not press public tolerance too far. Legislators will be judged on past performance at the ballot box in May, and if they exceed their authority now, they are unlikely to win a second chance.