A controversial bill spelling out how people should behave when China’s national anthem is played is too vague in some parts and overly prescriptive in others, local lawyers have said, adding that they hoped it could be tweaked before it becomes law. While the bill aims to encourage Hongkongers to respect the anthem and get schoolchildren to learn about it, they say references to matters of etiquette and how the anthem should be taught in schools should be scrapped. Barrister Po Wing-kay, chair of the Bar Association’s constitutional affairs committee, said the standards of behaviour expected while the anthem is played or sung were policy matters that could be implemented by administrative measures or education. “What we’re seeing is something quite unusual and foreign to the well-established principle of legislative drafting,” she said. “It is undesirable and unsatisfactory.” She urged the government to rethink these parts of the bill. New anthem law: what you can and cannot do The association and the Law Society – which represents solicitors – are finalising their formal responses to the bill, which will be scrutinised in the Legislative Council in the coming months. The proposed law aims to regulate how March of the Volunteers is played and sung, preserve the dignity of the anthem, and promote patriotism among Hongkongers. It criminalises any public and deliberate insult of the anthem, with penalties of up to HK$50,000 or three years in jail. The bill mirrors mainland China’s National Anthem Law, which says people should stand solemnly and behave with dignity when the anthem is played, and that primary and secondary schools should teach students about the song. Hong Kong left out references to etiquette and teaching in schools when, in 1997, it passed the National Flag and Emblem Ordinance, which mirrored the mainland’s National Flag Law. It is understood that in drafting the National Anthem Bill, Hong Kong dropped a clause imposing a legal duty on schools after meeting the two legal bodies. Patrick Nip Tak-kuen, the secretary for constitutional and mainland affairs, has previously said the clauses on etiquette and teaching do not carry a penalty , and the bill was aimed only at promoting respect for the anthem. These clauses are all unnecessary. Education is Hong Kong’s internal business, and mainland authorities do not need to meddle with it Legislator Dennis Kwok There has also been concern that the bill is not clear enough in defining what counts as insulting the anthem or undermining its dignity. Law Society vice-president Chan Chak-ming said clarity is important when drafting laws, to help people avoid running foul of new rules. “When the bill mentions being disrespectful to or insulting the anthem, the wording could be more clearly defined, as clarity does matter,” he said. The society warned last May that leaving the courts to define these matters could expose the judiciary to unfair criticism. Po said: “The language is rather imprecise. That leaves a lot of room for imagination.” She said matters of etiquette and teaching the anthem could be left to the education minister, who could issue directives to schools on what they were expected to do, and need not be included in the law. Hoping the bill would be fine-tuned before it is passed, she said: “I would urge the government to actively listen and respond to various views with an open mind.” A government source has previously said that proposals to improve the bill would be welcome. Legal sector lawmaker Dennis Kwok said he would argue to remove the two requirements of etiquette and teaching of the anthem during the Legco debate on the bill. He also wanted the government to clarify what counts as insulting the anthem. “These clauses are all unnecessary,” Kwok said. “Education is Hong Kong’s internal business, and mainland authorities do not need to meddle with it.” But law professor Simon Young, of the University of Hong Kong, said it was not wrong for a law to specify standards of decorum regarding a national symbol, as this could lead to changes in public behaviour. “If the law imposes an obligation, even though there are no teeth to back it up, it provides a legal basis for a person, body or institution to act in accordance with that obligation,” Young said. Failure to act in accordance with that obligation, he added, could result in criticism or action against an alleged offender. He said the bill would impose a high standard for prosecutors to prove an offender’s intention to insult, whereas someone with other motives such as conveying a political message might be let off if their behaviour is not deemed disrespectful. Joshua Wong leads protest against Hong Kong’s national anthem law He compared it to the actions of American football players who kneel during the US national anthem as a protest against alleged police brutality towards black people. “Their intention is to use the occasion to convey a political message, not to insult the anthem or undermine the dignity of the anthem,” Young said. Pro-establishment lawmaker Paul Tse Wai-chun conceded it was rare for advisory clauses to be written into legislation, but said he had no problem with their inclusion in the National Anthem Bill as no penalties are prescribed. Pointing out that such clauses were included in the contentious co-location bill passed last June to allow mainland jurisdiction over part of the Hong Kong terminal of the cross-border high-speed railway, Tse, also a lawyer, said: “Maybe that was the turning point in drafting.” Referring to the “one country, two systems” principle under which Hong Kong is run while being a part of China, he said: “When laws touch on cross-border issues or two systems, it is more likely they will come with these clauses.”