(Clearwisdom.net) Note: This is a reference article. All of the reference articles listed on this website were not written by, and do not necessarily reflect the views of, Falun Gong practitioners.

When considering the issue of the effect of Article 23 legislation on the Basic Law of Hong Kong, the senior officials of the special district kept saying that everybody should discuss and solve the dispute with rationality and composure. However, the public, along with the groups who have been involved in the dispute, have noticed throughout the discussion that the senior officials of the special district are precisely the ones who lack most of the spoken of rationality and composure, especially Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee, who is in charge of this matter.

Not only has Lau been coming up with all kinds of surprising and shocking statements such as, Hitler was a leader due to democratic election, but she also has labeled those who are against the legislation of Article 23 as people prone to exaggeration, fabrication, deception and misleading the public, etc. How can such inflammatory statements about the public and the opponents make the discussion calm and rational?

However, the inflammatory speeches were just part of the problem. The more important issue is that the government never truly intended to deal with this legislation issue through rational discussion.

As said Mr. Edward Chan, S.C., the newly elected chairman of the Hong Kong Bar Association: in answering all kinds of worries from public and social groups, the district government has been avoiding the real issue, and talking about unrelated things. The district government even regarded the opinions of the Hong Kong Bar Association and the Attorney Association, opinions that were based on the law and professional legal knowledge, as only "bargaining chips," and were not willing to treat those opinions seriously.

When the senior officials of the government only want to look at discussion about the legislation of Article 23 on the Basic Law as a bargain or deal, they do not consider whether the opinion is reasonable or proper, but rather that just their political interest and how to make minimum compromises. How can such an attitude promote calm, rational and deep discussion? Moreover, when the government regards the inquiry into the legislation as simply a bargaining process, it has already positioned itself on the opposite side of the public. This shows that the government only wants to negotiate with all the social groups, rather than work with the public and different groups to make the legislation more appropriate to better protect the citizens' rights and freedoms.

We think, in order to make the discussion rational, the government must change its attitude of being involved in negotiation. It has to work with different groups such as the Hong Kong Bar Association to establish a common ground of protecting citizens' rights. Only when the government officials understand that citizens' rights are not negotiable, can the discussion about Article 23 on the Basic Law become truly calm and rational, and this dispute finally be solved.