THE tussle between the administration and legislators over control of the Legislative Council's agenda is still going on. Clear statements from the Governor, Mr Chris Patten, and other senior officials that the Government would not support the establishment of a human rights commission have not stopped its principal proponent, Legislative Councillor Ms Anna Wu Hung-yuk, from fighting on.
Nor has another councillor, Miss Christine Loh Kung-wai, dropped her battle to push for the enactment of freedom of information legislation.
Ms Wu has now sought to raise her cause to a higher level by challenging the Governor to consider the constitutional basis of his power to decide whether a private member's bill with charging effect on government revenue can be introduced to Legco.
Under the Royal Instructions, the Governor's decision whether to give assent to a bill is his, and he is not obliged to consider anybody's advice or explain his reasons.
While conceding that her Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission Bill would not have the blessing of the Governor, Ms Wu wants him to set a precedent by acting 'by and with the consent of the Legislative Council' in making his decision.
In a letter to Mr Patten last week, Ms Wu argued that in exercising his power the Governor should not be influenced by his own opinions, or those of his government, on the merits of the commission.
Ms Wu said that the only relevant question is 'whether the establishment of a human rights commission for Hong Kong is a matter which may properly be disposed of by confidential executive deliberations and then announced to the public, or instead a matter that ought to be publicly debated and finally decided - as the constitutional formula provides - 'by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council'.' Ms Wu's argument is that the Governor's power in refusing to allow the introduction of private bills with charging effect on Government revenue originated in Britain where the constitutional framework is different.
