With the benefit of hindsight, I think people do recognize that point, the process point may have been more important than the substance […] There was definitely a perception that it [the Bill] was being rushed unnecessarily – with no white bill, and the intention to get it passed before the end of the session. So I do think there was that perception of high-handedness. Whether or not that was justified, there was that perception. 61 He added ironically, that as the substance of the Bill became increasingly liberal during the legislative process, the opposition still got greater and greater. People felt that the government viewed their opinions with disdain and bullishly continued to implement the Bill without the consent or full consultation with the public. As Christine Loh, ex-Legislative Councilor, Chairman and Founder of the CivicExchange, and member of the Article 23 Concern Group commented in a personal interview, They (the government) seemed to have presumed that they can pass that piece of legislation with the support of pro-government legislators. So, “to hell with talking to all you folks,” well that was certainly the impression that the then Secretary for Security gave. By the time the 500,000 people got up and went to the streets, just look at what had happened: they’ve had a senior minister responsible, Mrs Ip, say all kinds of terrible things to them; secondly, they’ve seen that progovernment legislators in the legislature, just weren’t interested in having
University of Hong Kong in Public Opinion Programme, 10 June 2003 [website]; available from http://hkupop.hku.hk/english/resources/bl23/bl23gp/report/report.pdf; Internet; accessed 19 March 2004.
38