AL Plenary | Asset freezing law given green light, Alves disagrees with ‘exceptions’

Leonel Alves

The Legislative Assembly (AL) has finally approved, with little discussion, the draft legislation complying with a United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution on fighting terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
In a plenary meeting held last Friday, lawmakers unanimously approved one of the laws (with exception of number 2 of Article 31), which the government had requested as a matter of urgency.
Few questions were asked during the final presentation to the plenary about a law that had gathered a general consensus among the legislators after being discussed in seven committee meetings between late March and early August this year.
Replacing standing committee president Kwan Tsui Hang, who had a temporary loss of speech capability  due to health problems, Ma Chi Seng made the final presentation before the voting.
Article 31 led to a discussion regarding its clause on the litigious appeal about asset freezing. On this matter, lawmaker Leonel Alves said, “there is a reversal of the burden of proof,” a situation with which he disagrees.
A representative of the Secretariat for Administration and Justice replied: “We are in [an] administrative law matter which means that even if there is an appeal, that doesn’t mean ‘asset unfreezing’. […] There is a presumption that whenever we are involved in possible terrorist acts, this means that we are in the presence of a matter of onerous public interest.”
The explanation did not convince Alves, who argued, “I do not agree with an exception to the rule. I think we have been doing that a lot lately [making laws with many exceptions] and that isn’t a good practice. Consecrating exceptions to the law always deserve a very good explanation.”
Alves requested that the voting for this specific part be done separately from the rest of the article.
AL president Ho Iat Seng granted the request, contrary to all the other articles (approval with 30 votes in favor), with two votes against and two other abstentions.
On the final vote, lawmaker Gabriel Tong justified his opposing vote by agreeing with Alves that the legislative option might be a “door left ajar” for the future application of the law.