It was two months ago that the Hong Kong government, despite the public uproar on July 1, announced its intention to stick with its schedule to legislate an anti-subversion law. Shortly afterwards, however, the dramatic resignation of Liberal Party chairman James Tien Pei-chun from the Tung cabinet in protest at the July 9 deadline left the government with no alternative but to postpone the bill. Today, the troubled legislation remains at a crossroads, as the newly appointed security minister Ambrose Lee Siu-kwong prepares to relaunch the process later this month. But there are signs of a rethink within the cabinet, which is considering the merits of enacting the law during the next legislative year. Last month, Exco member Tsang Yok-sing proposed to defer the bill until after the Legislative Council elections in September next year. Two of his Exco colleagues, Leung Chun-ying and Andrew Liao Cheung-sing, echoed the idea. The idea of a deferral was floated while senior Chinese leaders were canvassing the views of pro-Beijing figures from a wide section of Hong Kong society on the post-July 1 developments in Hong Kong. During the meetings, officials in Beijing made it clear that their stance on the legislative timetable had changed. Officials no longer expect the anti-subversion law to be enacted 'as soon as possible' as they have been saying over the past two years. The new buzzword is 'no deadline'. At the end of a visit to Beijing last week, a deputy head of a delegation of Hong Kong lawyers, Alan Hoo, summarised the central government's position as one of 'take your time, and do it your way - but do it'. According to sources close to the Tung administration, the central government has conceded the need for more flexibility over the legislative timetable in the wake of the 500,000-strong July 1 rally. One said: 'Beijing fully understands that it would be futile to set any deadlines if the bill is not acceptable to society.' Superficially, the central government's change of tack towards greater pragmatism will place the Hong Kong SAR government in a more relaxed position as it strives to rebuild the authority and credibility it lost during the period of the July 1 protests. There is no doubt that deferring the bill until after next year's Legco elections will more or less neutralise the issue of the Article 23 legislation during the campaign period. It is therefore hardly surprising that the idea came from the Democratic Alliance for Betterment of Hong Kong, which has suffered a plunge in popularity due to its unreserved backing for the original government plan. Politics boils down to interests. There is no shame for a political party like the DAB to abandon the July 9 timetable, if it found this was in their best interests to do so. But if the government handled the legislation only by taking electoral politics into account, it would invite criticism that it is unduly politicising the legislative work and that it lacks principles in lawmaking. If the 11 month-long legislative process has severely damaged the harmony and unity of society, this is largely because of the government's uncompromising tactics on the timetable, officials' dismissive attitude towards the views of lawyers, and ordinary people's anxiety about the proposals. Most were perhaps not so much opposed to the July 9 deadline, but to the government's high-handedness in trying to bulldoze the bill through. For the government to win public backing for an anti-subversion law, it is immensely important for it to go back to basics. It should observe good tradition, strict procedures and sound practices in lawmaking, rather than turn the process into a legislative game dictated by political expediency. Chris Yeung is the Post's Editor-at-Large
