Review of outdated legislation needs to be carried out with care

Hong Kong’s statute books have grown exponentially over two centuries, since the first British legislation was imported in the 1840s. Over that time, there have been multiple enactments and amendments. Some laws have been forgotten and are now outdated. It is surprising there has never been a systematic review of the city’s legislation to ensure it keeps up with the times. Now, 25 years after Hong Kong’s return to China, such an exercise is under way. The Law Reform Commission Secretariat has embarked on the process of adapting and consolidating the law while identifying obsolete provisions to be repealed. It is a difficult and complex task.

Lawmakers have focused on the adaptation exercise, which will remove remaining colonial language from the law. They have expressed outrage that terms such as “Her Majesty” and “the Crown” remain on the law books so long after the city’s colonial era ended. These outdated terms should have been removed long ago. It is absurd they remain. The practical implications have, however, been limited by effectively swapping-in post-handover equivalents when certain key terms are applied.

The removal of colonial language is not as straightforward as it may appear. Some terms can be easily replaced, but not all. The secretariat has pointed out, for example, that reference to “the Crown” in colonial laws sometimes referred to the Hong Kong government and other times to the British government. Clarity is required. Other outdated provisions refer to Britain’s system and are not easily substituted. There is a need for both the context and policy implications to be considered before they are removed. The process has been given priority, but it will take time.

Consolidating laws is also important. Over the years, laws on a particular issue have become scattered across numerous ordinances. They are often expressed in language that is not easy for the public to understand. Moves to make the law more readable and accessible are welcome. Then there is the removal of obsolete laws. It is amazing that this modern city still has legislation requiring that “nightsoil” only be conveyed in “strong substantial buckets”. Or a law forbidding the placing of cattle in pleasure grounds without authority. As the secretariat pointed out, these are products of a bygone era. But, more generally, the repealing of laws is a serious matter requiring consultation with stakeholders.

A review of the city’s legislation should have been launched long ago. Now that it is under way, care must be taken to ensure all the implications are considered. Feedback is needed from many government departments and bureaus. With care and a concerted effort, laws can belatedly be brought into the modern era.