appConfigEntityId

bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

isVideo

articlePageQuery

article

articleSchemaContent

content

hooksArticlePageAdvertisementConfigArticle

hooksArticlePageFloatingButtonConfigArticle

appConfig

filter

json

liveArticle

Jeffie Lam

Natalie Wong

Hong Kong’s U-turn on its seat belt rule for buses is a sobering reminder to lawmakers that they must meet higher standards even under the “executive-led” governance model recently underlined by Beijing, according to several policy experts.
They said some lawmakers had been complacent, prioritising speed over efficacy in policymaking in a “patriots-only” legislature with no opposition presence, and would have to share the responsibility for administrative missteps.
Xia Baolong, director of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, said in a seminar last month that the city’s executive, legislative and judicial branches should perform “on the same stage” with “coordination and cooperation” as key principles of its executive-led system.
He stressed that the executive leadership required active support from the legislature and judiciary to achieve “strong synergy in governance”, while warning against any attempts to promote the notion of separation of powers.
The dynamic among the three branches came under renewed scrutiny just four days later when the government admitted to a policy blunder in the wake of a hastily passed and poorly implemented seat belt law.
The flaws of the legislation – drafted by the Department of Justice, overseen by the Transport and Logistics Bureau and scrutinised by lawmakers – were thrown into stark relief amid a public backlash from commuters, who complained about the difficulty of unbuckling ahead of their stops and children being nearly choked by the belts.
Less than a week after the law was rolled out, the government repealed it after it became clear the rule covered only new vehicles registered from late January, with Secretary for Transport and Logistics Mable Chan pledging to review arrangements and seek public feedback.
While the government has been quick to accept responsibility, public condemnation has been strident.
The seat belt regulation was among three pieces of traffic-related subsidiary legislation endorsed by lawmakers at a subcommittee meeting last September after three hours of debate.
Records showed no lawmaker cited potential implementation issues, although some did ask about children using adult seat belts and raised questions about whether to allow passengers to continue standing on board buses.
Tam Yiu-chung, formerly the city’s sole delegate to the nation’s top legislative body, the National People’s Congress Standing Committee, acknowledged that the fiasco had left the public with a bad impression.
“They do not understand how such a problem in the bill could be overlooked by the Department of Justice, the Transport and Logistics Bureau, legal advisers and lawmakers in the legislature,” he said.
The rule was not a well-considered measure in the first place, Tam said, pointing out that standing was common on buses, unlike on other modes of public transport with smaller vehicles.
The government should have encouraged the use of seat belts through promotion and education and considered punitive legislation only as a last resort, he said, adding the situation showed lawmakers had not been conscientious enough in studying bills and were too eager to demonstrate their efficiency to the public.

According to Tam, Xia’s emphasis on the executive-led system was meant not only to highlight the government’s power but also to underline Beijing’s expectation that lawmakers fulfil their role in policy delivery.
“Sometimes they have strong trust in the government and hope to actively cooperate with the administration in pushing policies ahead,” he said.
“But they should also come up with practical ideas for officials before problems worsen. In any policy failure, both the executive and legislative branches share collective responsibility.”
Lau Siu-kai, a consultant to the semi-official Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macau Studies think tank, said the incident served as a warning to lawmakers that they should perform their duties more rigorously.
“An executive-led system means that different branches should cooperate while keeping each other in check. It does not mean that lawmakers have no responsibility to monitor the government, as long as their criticisms are well-intended and constructive,” he said.
Lau observed that lawmakers tended to be more cautious on issues that were overtly political, while paying inadequate attention to the technical nitty-gritty of other public policies.
According to Lau, some legislators were especially tepid when it came to the work involving committees that had to inspect bills clause by clause, as such tasks required experience and knowledge, and were time-consuming and tedious while attracting little media exposure.
“I think the Legislative Council has to make necessary arrangements to ensure the work of the bills committees is properly discharged by their members,” he said.
Ronny Tong Ka-wah, a senior counsel and member of the key decision-making Executive Council, said it was “highly undesirable” for the government to make U-turns on public policies after they were passed, as such flip-flopping would undermine the credibility of the executive-led system.
Apart from the shortcomings of lawmakers, Tong said the seat belt fiasco highlighted three problems in government: the authorities’ failure to gauge public adaptability to the measure, the lack of proper planning in implementation and insufficient attention given to the legislative process.
“When the government legislates, the relevant bureau first requests the Department of Justice for a draft, which the bureau must check before submitting it to the legislature for scrutiny,” he said.
“Before the legislation is enacted, doesn’t the bureau also review the bill before publishing it? How can they only find out that the law ‘violates the original intent of the legislation’ afterwards?”
While the seat belt law appears to have ignited a fresh debate about the relative powers of the three branches of government in Hong Kong, the issue is a long-standing one going back to the mid-1980s.

Deng Xiaoping, China’s paramount leader at the time, rejected the idea of adopting a model involving a separation of powers, arguing the city’s system “should not be completely Westernised”.
In a statement to the National People’s Congress in 1990, Ji Pengfei, chairman of the Basic Law Drafting Committee, said: “The executive authorities and the legislature should regulate each other as well as coordinate their activities. The chief executive must have real power, which, at the same time, should be subject to some restrictions.”
Tam, who was a member of that committee, said the executive-led system concept was embedded in the design of the Basic Law, but Chinese officials downplayed it in the early stages of the British handover to avoid the impression that Beijing was intervening in local affairs.
The issue continued to be discussed after Hong Kong returned to Chinese sovereignty in 1997. In the city’s courts, some key rulings affirmed the principle of separation of powers in the context of the former British colony remaining a common law jurisdiction.
Former chief justice Andrew Li Kwok-nang said that Hong Kong’s political framework involved “checks and balances between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary,” with an independent judiciary playing a vital role to “ensure the acts of the executive and the legislature comply fully with the Basic Law”.
Tong argued that Xia’s remarks were not at odds with the judicial independence of the city, as mainland China was also developing as a jurisdiction governed by the rule of law.
“What he was highlighting is that Hong Kong’s judiciary is also part of the establishment framework, and that it is not independent of the constitutional order,” he said.
He noted that Xia’s emphasis on the non-existence of separation of powers was a reminder that authorities should guard against efforts to subvert judicial procedures to challenge the executive branch.
In a column published in local media last week, former Legco president Rita Fan Hsu Lai-tai called on the city’s new lawmakers to serve as a “bridge” between the government and residents. She said legislators should use the chamber to debate policies and question the government, while focusing on their work in bills committees to study proposed new laws.
“Such work needs to balance the interests of different parties to ensure the bill fits its original intent and its effective implementation,” she said.
“It is the most important duty of the legislature. A law affects tens of thousands of families. The foundation of Hong Kong’s rule of law is its fair and feasible laws, and Legco is one of the cornerstones in protecting the rule of law.”
Fan, also the city’s former representative to the nation’s top legislative body, called on lawmakers to avoid “individualism” and help the executive branch in the city’s governance.


Tung Chee-hwa’s legacy helps lay foundations for better tomorrows

‘His love for Hong Kong was profound’: Tung Chee-hwa honoured at state funeral

Hong Kong’s first chief executive Tung Chee-hwa honoured with state funeral

US Congress investigates diversion of sensitive F-35 parts to Hong Kong: report

Hong Kong politics

Are Hong Kong lawmakers also to blame over seat belt law blunder?

Hong Kong Chief Executive John Lee (front centre) with the latest cohort of lawmakers at the Legislative Council building on January 1. Photo: Sam Tsang

The government repealed the seat belt law within a week of its implementation following a public backlash. Photo: Jelly Tse

Xia Baolong, director of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, warned last month against attempts by “foreign and disruptive forces” to promote the idea of separation of powers in Hong Kong. Photo: Handout

Hong Kong authorities repeal ‘flawed’ bus seat belt law

The seat belt rules had sparked complaints over uncomfortable restraints, hygiene risks and fears that unbuckling before alighting would violate the law. Photo: Sam Tsang

Transport chief Mable Chan says a public consultation will be launched to get public views on seat belt rules for bus passengers. Photo: Karma Lo

Failures on 2 fronts led to Hong Kong’s seat belt U-turn, experts say

The seat belt requirement for bus passengers came into effect on Sunday. Photo: Karma Lo

Transport minister Mable Chan announces the decision to repeal the seat belt rule. Photo: Karma Lo

News

Hong Kong

Politics

Government’s flip-flopping on mandatory seat belts aboard buses is wake-up call for legislators to scrutinise bills more rigorously, experts say


Government’s flip-flopping on mandatory seat belts aboard buses is wake-up call for legislators to scrutinise bills more rigorously, experts say.


Are Hong Kong lawmakers also to blame over seat belt law blunder?

.css-1c6uqr6{color:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-family:inherit;line-height:inherit;overflow-wrap:break-word;}Government’s flip-flopping on mandatory seat belts aboard buses is wake-up call for legislators to scrutinise bills more rigorously, experts say

Government’s flip-flopping on mandatory seat belts aboard buses is wake-up call for legislators to scrutinise bills more rigorously, experts say