16 Dec 2009

Members' Motions 'Domestic Violence (Amendment) Bill 2009’

Deputy President, I rise to speak in support of the resumption of the Second Reading of the Domestic Violence (Amendment) Bill 2009 (the Bill).

The resumption of the Second Reading of the Bill in the Legislative Council today seeks to incorporate into the scope of protection those who were not considered and taken care of by the Domestic Violence (Amendment) Bill 2007 introduced previously, that is, same-sex cohabitants victimized by violence. The Bill also seeks to give effect to the cross-party consensus reached in the last term of the Legislative Council.

It is only after many rounds of consultation and tug-of-war that this version of the Bill is drawn up. Issues relating to ethics and human rights were brought up in the process of discussions, which was marked by exaggeration, sensational appeals, expression of extreme views and even efforts to mobilize street protests.

We are glad to see that after repeated discussions and presentation of arguments, an all-win situation has finally been achieved. I believe this is a lesson that should merit the in-depth reflection and consideration of politicians. And, it should also be considered as a good example of how a controversial issue can be resolved.

Deputy President, why do I say so? I think I must start with the cross-party consensus reached in the last term of the Legislative Council. At the end of last year, in response to the cross-party consensus, the Government introduced legislative proposals to the Panel on Welfare Services (the Panel) in the new term of the Legislative Council. However, the legislative proposals of the Government came just like a sudden peal of thunder, producing huge reverberations in the Panel. I, as a newcomer to this Council, and some other new Members, expressed strong opposition to the legislative proposals.

I must stress that those Members opposing the proposals and I were actually in support of making legislation to protect all persons against violence, including same-sex cohabitants. We raised our objection mainly because the legislative proposals of the bill at that time might have an impact on the definitions of marriage and family, because traditional concepts of the family and marriage refer to heterosexual relationships, and the parties to a homosexual relationship cannot be considered as parties to a family relationship. However, under the Government's proposal at that time, it was mentioned that same-sex cohabitants were in a relationship as in a marriage. This seemed to be a further step towards recognizing homosexual relationship, making people worry whether an indirect recognition of same-sex marriage would result. This was not only inconsistent with the Administration's intention of proposing the legislative amendments, but would also spark off a series of disputes over the legalization of homosexuality and impact the moral and family values of Hong Kong society.

Under the Marriage Ordinance, a marriage is the voluntary union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. This is the marriage or family relationship recognized by the law. My view is that the definitions of marriage and the family cannot allow even the slightest bit of ambiguity. I was worried then that these legislative proposals which the Government had formulated for the sake of expediency would impact the definitions of marriage and the family, thus shaking the core values of our Chinese society, and even leading to legal disputes in the future, as pointed out by Dr Priscilla LEUNG earlier on.

After a number of Members and I had expressed our strong views, many stakeholders in the community and this Council came forth one after another to express their views and put forward proposals, thus triggering contentions on human rights, moral values and family values. Two opposing sides were formed soon, and what started as rational debates soon changed in nature and became drastic actions. These disputes made the Administration think twice and pay attention to the different voices in society. While society had reached a consensus on making legislation to protect all persons against violence irrespective of their sexual orientation, there was nevertheless no consensus on making changes to the marriage and family relationship based on one man and one woman.

Fortunately, people who held opposing views could exercise restraint, which enabled the debates to re-focus, thus preventing any further deviation from from the objective. And, owing to the participation of the education sector, parents and other organizations, arguments were no longer confined to religious faiths, and the Government and the community could thus gain a more comprehensive understanding of the concerns of those in disagreement.

After six months of consultation and tug-of-war, the Government finally introduced some new proposals in June this year. The proposals included the amendment of the short title of the Domestic Violence Ordinance (《家庭暴力條例》) as "Domestic and Cohabitation Relationships Violence Ordinance" and 《家庭及同居關係暴力條例》in Chinese, so as to stress the applicability of the Ordinance to parties to a cohabitation relationship. The Government also proposed to include in the Ordinance a definition of "cohabitation relationship" which makes no references to marriage, spouse or husband and wife. It is defined to mean a relationship between two persons who live together as a couple in an intimate relationship, and includes such a relationship that has come to an end. These amendments, which provide protection to cohabitants against violence without dealing a blow to family and marriage values, are accepted by all sides. Members urged the Government to introduce the Bill as soon as possible, so that the Legislative Council can examine and endorse it expeditiously to provide protection to same-sex cohabitants against violence.

Deputy President, I, being a newcomer in this Council, hope that this incident can become a good example of how problems can be resolved in society or in this Council. It is in fact normal for Members to hold different views but we need to seek consensus, set a clear goal and work together to identify solutions, rather than hurling abuses at each other, defying, insulting and trampling on each other or going to different extremes. While some of the views may not be what we wish to hear, these voices must be given the opportunity to be presented and considered in this Council or in society. This is an important test to the maturity of the civil society of Hong Kong. In order to have freedoms and democracy, there must be the rule of law, and there must be citizens with good education and a mature civil society.

Deputy President, I so submit.