Colonial statutes that appear beyond reason

Reading Hong Kong's statutes is like taking a trip down memory lane - to a time when the Union Jack flew above Government House and cucumber sandwiches were the order of the day at the China Club.

One look at the section in the Crimes Ordinance on treason and you'll be singing God Save The Queen before you know it. Here it states that a person commits treason if he (a) kills, wounds or causes bodily harm to Her Majesty, or imprisons or restrains Her; (b) forms an intention to do any such act as mentioned in paragraph (a) and manifests such intention by an overt act; (c) levies war against Her Majesty.

Not that there's any legal problem. Under the heading 'Amendments retroactively made' is the statement that any reference in any provision to Her Majesty, the Crown, the British Government or the Secretary of State (or to similar names, terms or expressions) ... shall be construed as a reference to the Central People's government or other competent authorities of the People's Republic of China.

So why, 13 years after the handover, haven't these laws been updated rather than leaving on the books ambiguous references, especially to treason?

Hong Kong Law Society president Huen Wong would prefer to see all references to the queen removed. 'The ordinance must be updated immediately and that section reworded,' he said.

'I'm sure it is not a problem legally, as the change has been noted in amendments. These amendments had to be made almost overnight in the course of the handover as Hong Kong was going from one jurisdiction to another. However, for clarity's sake it should now be changed throughout and tidied up. It's time to remove these references.

'I don't know why it hasn't been done before now - it may be down to staff shortages - but they will need to make the appropriate changes soon to avoid confusion.'