HKFP on LegCo’s rejection of a government bill to recognise same-sex partnerships…
…with just 14 out of 86 lawmakers voting in favour.
A total of 71 lawmakers voted against the bill on Wednesday, while one legislator, Doreen Kong, abstained.
It was the first time the opposition-free legislature voted down a government bill.
Lawmakers resumed the debate on the Registration of Same-sex Partnerships Bill, which sought to give limited rights to same-sex couples whose marriages or civil unions are registered overseas, on Wednesday, after a summer recess.
…Lawmaker Maggie Chan, who brought a sign to the meeting reading “Resolutely opposed to the Registration of Same-sex Partnerships Bill,” said the bill “rocks the foundation of the monogamous and heterosexual marriage system in Hong Kong.”
…The Court of Final Appeal gave the government two years to pass a framework for recognising same-sex partnerships. The deadline is October 27.
The Standard adds…
…Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Erick Tsang Kwok-wai expressed disappointment regarding the result, emphasizing that the rejection does not represent any impact or influence on the rule of law, but serves as a demonstration of the sharing of responsibilities as well as mutual respect among executive authorities, the LegCo and the Judiciary.
…He noted that lawmakers are elected to represent public opinion, and the rejection of the bill indicated that there remain divergent opinions both within the Legislative Council and among the public. The issue of same-sex partnerships is highly controversial and needs additional time for further examination. He added that the government respects LegCo’s decision and will further discuss and study the issue with the Department of Justice.
Tsang added that the government has made every effort to gain support from both the public and lawmakers and has fulfilled its obligations within the timeframe set by the Court of Final Appeal. Although the result did not align with the government’s legislative proposal, Tsang said the process served as a positive example of how each branch of government fulfills its constitutional duties under the Basic Law.
The CCP, in line with Leninist ideology, openly rejects separation of powers. Officially Hong Kong does have independent executive, legislative and judicial branches. But Beijing officials have always maintained that the city is ‘executive-led’, and in recent NatSec-era years have openly stressed that LegCo and the courts have a duty to support the (CCP-appointed) government – the all-patriots legislature being designed to have no opposition. It is hard to square talk of ‘sharing of responsibilities’ or ‘seeking public support’ with this.
If the authorities had demanded lawmakers’ support for the bill, they would have had it. Some might think the vote reflects Beijing’s disapproval of gay rights – or civil-society activism of any sort. For what it’s worth, the big pro-Beijing parties in LegCo seem to see gay rights as an unhealthy ‘Western’ thing. Ultimately, this looks like a way to put the (non-NatSec) courts in their place.
Many years ago, I looked at the Lantau reclamation proposal and declared it to have ‘not going to happen’ written all over it. For a while, it seemed then-Chief Executive Carrie Lam and her bureaucrat/engineering buddies were actually serious about spending half a trillion bucks or more on something we already have. More recently, the money has run out, and someone, somewhere noticed that the New Territories has lots of underused land. RTHK reports…
Secretary for Development Bernadette Linn on Wednesday said the government does not have a timetable for the Kau Yi Chau project, and that the reclamation works off Lantau would not be carried out within this current term of government.
In a written reply to lawmaker Lo Wai-kwok, Linn said her bureau also thinks it is inappropriate to continue environmental impact assessment procedures without a timetable for the reclamation work.
Welp I called it back in the summer that Legco would vote down this bill. It completed its historic function of making the Legco not look like a rubber stamp, even though it actually is if it is anything Beijing cares about.
I am happy to get know from the HKFP that our so called „lawmakers“ went all out to fight against such unimportant bill, like our genius Junius :“When there are only mums in your home and no dads, or some have only dads and no mums, how do we celebrate Father’s Day and Mother’s Day? … we already have a lot of problems on our plate today,” Ho said.
Indeed!
I am not sure whether it is ironic or just sadly predictable that on the one and only occasion when LegCo votes down a government bill, they do so only to prove themselves even more out of touch. They don’t seem to be aware that monogamous marriage is a relatively recent development in Chinese history, nor that the general public whose opinions they supposedly represent are far more concerned about their favourite shops and restaurants closing down and their jobs disappearing over the border than they are about who marries or lives with whom, of whatever gender.
As for the East Lantau Environmenrtal Disaster Area plan, is it some lingering fear of Carrie Lam’s wrath that drives the government to kick it down the road instead of just closing the coffin lid on it now?
Pieces of the Kau Yi Chau reclamation plan have been kicking around since the late 1980s when the idea was to reclaim a massive chunk off Lantau, wrapping around the entire island of Peng Chau, for a cargo terminal we didn’t need. That got cancelled when the economy went south in 1998 but the government persisted in trying to build the highways we also didn’t need for several years afterwards.
30 years later they pull it out of the filing cabinet in revised form. Now back in it goes. I expect we haven’t seen the last of it. It’s one of those zombie ideas that keeps coming back from the dead.
I wish it were a surprise, but the same sex bill had everything going against it from the start. they don’t even allow pink dot to continue. world city indeed
Maggie Chan: “rocks the foundation of the monogamous and heterosexual marriage system in Hong Kong.”
This in a city where prostitution is one of the biggest contributors to the GDP and the media runs multiple reports every day on the extra marital affairs of the ‘elite’.
Unfortunately there is no longer media around that would expose the licentiousness of Legco members.
As only 30% of registered voters took part in the last Legco election, the other 70%, more than likely with less conservative views, had no representation in the decision process
Hong Kong doesn’t want same-sex marriage. Get over it.
“Ultimately, this looks like a way to put the (non-NatSec) courts in their place.”
Also I totally agree with this. This was the last bit of autonomy the courts had and now they got cucked. How are they going to hold the government responsible now? They can’t do anything other than give them another extension which looks like a weak move to me. The legacy non-NatSec judiciary is being made to look like a useless ornament, and indeed that’s by design.
I guess it has some use when it comes to commercial cases, sort of like Singaporean courts. But they’ve definitely been put in their place, and shown that nothing trumps the State power of the CCP.
An interesting article I found:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/sep/11/hong-kong-same-sex-couples-rights-bill-rejected
“Meanwhile Beijing officials said the decision proved that LegCo was not a “rubber stamp” parliament, as critics have called it since the electoral overhaul.”
As I suspected, this was one of the goals. Though just a little research makes it clear that this rejection goes against mainstream public opinion but that’s the norm for the patriots only Legco.
“The court of final appeal gave the government a two-year deadline, which ends this month. In a statement the government said it wouldn’t apply for an extension, but would “further discuss and study the issue with the department of justice”.”
Now this is interesting as I was expecting an extension. So how will the government keep to their legal compliance obligations without formally requesting an extension? Will they just do nothing and show the courts as cucks or will they try to do some kind of negative vetting secondary legislation to create a nominal level of compliance to the court order?