Au Kam San (left) and Ng Kuok Cheong
Ng Kuok Cheong, Au Kam San and José Pereira Coutinho were the most vocal critics against the changes promoted by the government to the law of public assembly and demonstration that aim to change the jurisdiction on such matters from the Civic and Municipal Affairs Bureau (IACM) to the Public Security Police Force (PSP). The bill was discussed and approved yesterday at plenary session of the Legislative Assembly (AL) and passed at the first reading with only the three lawmakers voting against.
After a short presentation lacking in content made by the Secretary for Administration and Justice Sonia Chan, lawmaker Ng was the first to address the plenary to criticize the bill saying, “when this law was initially approved [in 1993] we were told that we would never see those rights reduced or restrained.” The lawmaker said that in his opinion, the bill aims to discourage residents from expressing their opinions.
Ng noted that the most relevant aspect of any public assembly or demonstration has to do with the use of public space and “that is the reason that has always been under the [supervision of the] municipal authorities.”
“Why are we passing this [responsibility] to the police? What is the reason that justifies the need for this [change of] attribution?” Ng asked noting the absence on the government stand of any representatives from the police or from the security secretariat.
Noting also the lack of a public consultation by the government on the matter, the same lawmaker said he did not understand how the change of competence from the IACM to the PSP could simplify the process.
Following on from Ng’s questions was Au Kam San.
“This law is 25 years old. What were the difficulties and problems faced in its application? I can’t see any problems that justify [the need] to change this law. There is no strong reason to change it and with the urgency [in which it is presented to the AL], this needs to be explained.”
As for lawmaker Pereira Coutinho, he remarked that the change “is not a simple one” as the Secretary was advocating. “This is an important change and your presentation didn’t explain anything. We want to know why, as well as what the procedure will be. Will the PSP have to inform the IACM after receiving the request […] for a public assembly or demonstration?”
But not only the group of three that voted against the bill questioned the government.
Lawmaker Agnes Lam also noted the lack of justification for changing the law and questioned if such changes are related with the plan to change the IACM into a new organization, the Municipal Affairs Bureau (IAM).
Adding to the previous three lawmakers, Lam also noted, “In other regions this [task] is also done by the municipal departments who then report to the police.”
Lawmaker Song Pek Kei was in agreement with Agnes Lam, who besides asking on the relation to the IAM, also said: “This carries a lot of work for our administrative machine, the government should clearly explain why this [duty] moves from an administrative service to the security area.”
“Which competences from PSP will be reinforced by the proposal?” she queried, adding, “I just hope the government doesn’t find one more way to get criticized by the population just for oversimplification.”
The same lawmaker also referred to interpretations from the Final Appeal Court that previously found that the services of the government do not have competence to authorize or refuse demonstrations, noting, “we shouldn’t be worried with this, but I think the government can clarify to reassure the population.”
Another critic of the change was lawmaker Kou Hoi In, noting, “it doesn’t seem to make much sense,” and questioning, “If we shouldn’t discuss this after the creation of the IAM instead.”
On the replies to the many questions and doubts from the lawmakers, Chan said, “Lawmaker Song helped already to reply on the reasons,” noting that the change is related to the new IAM and its attributions, remarking, “We understand that on this creation we should transfer that notification to the police since the police already assumes a very important role on these matters.”
“It is a simple transference of competence and will not repress any of the fundamental rights of the population,” she said, adding that that was the reason there was no public consultation.
The answers did not please Au, who said that they were unconvincing. He argued that if the new IAM continues to be in charge of public spaces, “it doesn’t make any sense to inform the police that knows nothing on the use and management of public spaces.”
“This will just create added problems and complications and will not [simplify] anything for the population,” he added. “There is a lack of logic that is being proposed for the process and procedure.”
On the voting that followed, the bill was approved with 26 votes in favor and three against with Lam in her voting declaration noting that she only supported the bill “because it will not change any rights.”
Creation of the new Municipal Affairs Bureau under fire
Sonia Chan
The creation of the new Municipal Affairs Bureau (IAM) that will replace the current Civic and Municipal Affairs Bureau (IACM) in most of its attributions was under fire yesterday from the pro-democracy wing of the AL.
In yesterday’s plenary meeting, which discussed the bill for the creation of the new bureau, the pro-democratic wing lead by Ng Kuok Cheong, Au Kam San and José Pereira Coutinho was especially active in criticizing the lack of democratic aspects in the system to established under the “municipal Bodies without political power” mantra.
As in the previous debate, Agnes Lam also joined the democrats in saying that the proposal now presented falls short of the expectations of the population.
“We have been in a long discussion of this matter, but we have been feeding false hopes to the population. We were saying this would give an opportunity for the younger generation and others to participate actively through […] municipal assemblies – but we took all this away; we removed all the democratic [potential] of this project,” she said.
“The members are all appointed by the chief executive, none are elected and they will continue to manage the matters related with the population,” add Ng on the topic.
He recalled that members of the IAM will compose the electoral college that will next year decide on the new chief executive. “This is controlling all the factors by surrounding [themselves] with the same people.”
Coutinho noted the reduction in responsibilities of the new IAM, which will still keep the same structure and number of staff members.
Au heavily criticized Secretary Chan saying that she did not dedicate any attention to the creation of this body. “You just changed the name. How can you just change the name and [in only doing so] improve on the quality of the services provided?”
Questioned also on the other competences that will move from the IACM to the jurisdiction of other public departments, Chan added that matters related to weapons and ammunitions, as well as firecrackers and fireworks will also be removed from the IAM. On the other hand, some services that were recently “lost” in the previous reorganization – for example cultural and sports matters that went to the Cultural Affairs Bureau and the Sports Bureau respectively – will be returned.
The bill was then voted on and approved at the first reading with the same three votes against by Ng, Au and Coutinho.
No Comments