|
Following is a question by the Hon Albert Ho and a reply by the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs, Mr Raymond Tam, in the Legislative Council today (November 27):
Question:
At the Legislative Council meeting on the 6th of this month, a Member of this Council moved a motion under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (the P&P Ordinance) to authorise a panel of this Council to order the Government to produce the relevant documents involved in the vetting and approval of domestic free television programme service licence applications (seeking documents under the P&P Ordinance). Two Members of this Council have revealed that, prior to the aforesaid meeting, some officials of the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (LOCPG) had approached them and discussed the subject with them. Subsequently, in responding to the criticism that such action of LOCPG was tantamount to interfering in the internal affairs of Hong Kong, a Member of the Executive Council (ExCo) said that seeking documents under the P&P Ordinance would impact on the confidentiality system of ExCo and as constitutional issues were involved, LOCPG had the responsibility to uphold the Basic Law and the policy of "One Country, Two Systems". In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) as Article 22 of the Basic Law stipulates that "[n]o department of the Central People's Government and no province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the Central Government may interfere in the affairs which the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region administers on its own in accordance with this Law", whether the authorities have formulated any mechanism or procedure to deal with situations where there is interference in the affairs which Hong Kong administers on its own; if they have, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(b) whether it has assessed if seeking documents under the P&P Ordinance is an affair which the Hong Kong SAR administers on its own as stipulated in Article 22 of the Basic Law; if the assessment outcome is in the affirmative, whether it has assessed if the officials of LOCPG have contravened the aforesaid article of the Basic Law by discussing the matter with Members of this Council; if the assessment outcome is in the affirmative, whether the authorities have relayed to LOCPG that its officials have contravened the Basic Law by expressing views on this matter; if they have not, of the reasons for that; and
(c) whether the aforesaid views of the ExCo Member reflect the views of ExCo; if so, of the justifications for ExCo to hold such views?
Reply:
President,
Regarding the Member's question, after consulting relevant bureaux and departments, I will represent the Administration to give a consolidated reply as follows:
According to Article 12 of the Basic Law, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) shall be a local administrative region of the People's Republic of China, which shall enjoy a high degree of autonomy and come directly under the Central People's Government (CPG). According to Article 2 of the Basic Law, the National People's Congress authorises the HKSAR to exercise a high degree of autonomy and enjoy executive, legislative and independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication, in accordance with the provisions of the Basic Law. According to Article 16 of the Basic Law, the HKSAR shall be vested with executive power. It shall, on its own, conduct the administrative affairs of the Region in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Basic Law.
Since the establishment of the HKSAR, the Central Authorities have been acting in strict accordance with the fundamental principles and policies of "One Country, Two Systems", "Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong" and a high degree of autonomy, as well as the provisions of the Basic Law to support the Chief Executive (CE) and the HKSAR Government in administering Hong Kong in accordance with law. On March 18, 2013, the Premier of the State Council Li Keqiang met with the CE of the HKSAR. He stated that the new leadership of the CPG was committed to thoroughly implementing the "One Country, Two Systems" principle and would act in strict accordance with the Basic Law and fully support the CE and the HKSAR Government in administering Hong Kong in accordance with law. Since the reunification, the HKSAR Government has also been administering the affairs of Hong Kong in strict accordance with the Basic Law and the "One Country, Two Systems" principle.
Regarding the system of confidentiality of the Executive Council (ExCo), the Chief Secretary for Administration (CS) has already replied to a Member's question at the Legislative Council (LegCo) meeting on November 13 this year. CS has emphasised that ExCo is an organ with constitutional status that assists the CE in policy-making. In order to perform its function in a fully competent manner, ExCo has been adhering to the principle of confidentiality over the years to ensure that ExCo Members can speak freely and honestly without any pressure when giving advice to the CE. It also enables the CE to listen to different views when assessing the pros and cons of policies, so that the policies eventually formulated will be more comprehensive. The principle of confidentiality is also the basis on which the integrity of the ExCo system relies. Protecting the integrity of the ExCo system is a matter of significant public interest. In line with the principle of confidentiality of ExCo, the Government will not disclose the content of ExCo agendas and discussions, but the Government will explain the decisions made and the relevant considerations by means of press releases and LegCo Briefs.
Our reply to the three parts of the Hon Ho's question is as follows:
(a) Since the reunification, the CPG, the offices set up by the CPG in the HKSAR and the HKSAR Government have all along been adhering strictly to the "One Country, Two Systems" principle, the provisions of the Basic Law, and abiding by their own areas of responsibility in accordance with law.
(b) The legal basis relevant to the LegCo's request for production of documents is stipulated clearly in the relevant provisions under the Basic Law and the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (Cap 382):
(i) According to Article 73 of the Basic Law, when exercising the powers and functions stated in that Article of the Basic Law, the LegCo may summon the persons concerned to testify or give evidence.
(ii) According to section 9(1) of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance, the LegCo or a standing committee thereof may, subject to sections 13 and 14, order any person to attend before the LegCo or before such committee and to give evidence or to produce any paper, book, record or document in the possession or under the control of such person.
(iii) On the other hand, Article 48(11) of the Basic Law provides that one of the powers and the functions of the CE is to decide, in the light of security and vital public interests, whether government officials or other personnel in charge of government affairs should testify or give evidence before the LegCo or its committees. Besides, any person may refuse to answer any question or produce any paper according to section 13 of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance and enjoy the privileges of witness, etc., according to section 14 of the Ordinance.
Since the reunification, the Government has been acting in strict accordance with law in handling the request made by the LegCo to produce documents under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance.
The Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the HKSAR (CPGLO) is an organisation authorised by the CPG and performs functions in accordance to the authority conferred by the CPG, including liaising with the Office of the Commissioner of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China in the HKSAR and the Hong Kong Garrison of the Chinese People's Liberation Army; promoting general exchange and co-operation between Hong Kong and the Mainland; liaising with various sectors of the community of Hong Kong to enhance exchanges between the Mainland and Hong Kong; and reflecting the views of Hong Kong residents on the Mainland, etc.
Regarding the domestic free television programme service licence applications mentioned in the question, we notice that there are media reports on LegCo Members mentioning that they were approached by CPGLO officials. According to the relevant media reports, the concerned Members stated that no one had exerted any pressure on them. Moreover, we notice that the concerned Members had different voting inclinations on the concerned motion at the LegCo.
(c) I have quoted in Part 2 of the reply the legal basis relevant to the LegCo's request for production of documents under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance. As regards the views expressed by an individual ExCo Member on public occasions, so long as the principles of "confidentiality system" and "collective responsibility system" of the ExCo are not violated, ExCo Members, like any other citizen, have the same right of expressing personal opinions. We will not comment on the personal views expressed by individual ExCo Members.
Ends/Wednesday, November 27, 2013
|
