appConfigEntityId

bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

isVideo

articlePageQuery

article

articleSchemaContent

content

hooksArticlePageAdvertisementConfigArticle

hooksArticlePageFloatingButtonConfigArticle

appConfig

filter

json

liveArticle

C. K. Yeung

Before humans invented law, human behaviour was governed by innate moral ethics. This is the starting point of all laws across the world. Theft is illegal, murder is a crime – these are universally accepted moral standards.
However, the idea that same-sex couples should enjoy the same legal status as heterosexual marriages is not a universally accepted moral standard. So where should Hong Kong draw the line?
This is not a matter for the executive, the legislature or the judiciary. It is a moral question. The moral view of the chief executive, lawmakers and legal experts carries not one ounce more weight than the view of a Kwun Tong housewife. That is why whether to introduce a same-sex partner registration system should be decided by the collective will of the people of Hong Kong.
Hong Kong is not a sovereign state, so we don’t have a mechanism for a public referendum to determine our collective opinion, but our system has its own strengths. Without great fuss or cumbersome procedures, we can let our 90 legislators elected from every walk of life cast a free vote based on their individual conscience, independent of all external pressure.
All political, professional and business organisations and trade unions should publicly declare that they will not issue any voting instructions to their affiliated legislators, allowing them to vote freely according to their conscience.
Likewise, the government should make clear that legislators who serve in both the Executive Council and Legislative Council are not bound by Exco’s principle of collective responsibility on this particular issue and may vote freely. The executive may, as with other policy proposals, explain their rationale to the legislature but must not lobby behind the scenes or attempt to sway votes. The central government’s liaison office should likewise refrain from intervening.

A result born from such free voting would reflect the true collective will of our community. For most residents, the passage or rejection of the proposed registration system will not affect their lives or welfare. If passed, so be it. If rejected, that is also acceptable. Life goes on, the skies remain clear.
But if we see with our own eyes that our legislators are unable to vote freely according to their conscience on a question of ethics and instead vote mechanically under the dictates of others, then no matter the result, be it the passage or rejection of the registration system, it will be repugnant. It will erode public confidence in the Legislative Council.
For those directly affected by the outcome, if the proposal is passed, they will naturally rejoice. But if all 90 legislators vote freely according to their conscience and reject the proposal, then no one can be blamed. One must accept the reality that our community is not ready to embrace this change.
If the proposal is rejected because the votes were cast by hand-raising robots, though, how can anyone accept such a result? What would shake our community is not whether the registration system is passed or rejected, but whether the process by which it is passed or rejected is fair and just.


That is all the more reason the process must be seen to be fair and just by all, including the 90 legislators who bear an unshakeable moral accountability to themselves. Are they voting robots, or are they free legislators defending fairness and justice?
The suggestion of such a conscience vote will surely draw opposing voices. I can almost hear them now: it would set a dangerous precedent and disrupt the legislature’s method of operation, and it would undermine executive-led governance.
The fact is that a free vote would indeed set a precedent – a good and necessary, not a dangerous, one. In many democracies around the world, when legislative assemblies face moral and ethical choices – such as euthanasia, same-sex marriage or abortion – legislators are permitted to vote freely based on personal conscience.


Moreover, with the rapid rise of artificial intelligence, humanoid robot companions and human genome modification techniques, we are on the brink of moral dilemmas humanity has never faced before. The world’s first marriage between a human and an autonomous robot could occur within a few years.
To some people, this might sound perverse, even frightening. But for those around the world born with severe deformities who have lived in lifelong isolation without a normal social life, an autonomous AI companion could bring them comfort and joy never before experienced. How should society regulate this? Who decides whether to accept it?
The only viable answer is to let every person be guided by their own moral compass, shaped by the sum of their life’s experiences and guided by what they aspire the future to be. Hong Kong will face such dilemmas in time. Now is the moment to establish a sound and forward-looking precedent.
Allowing Executive Council members a free vote on this specific issue would not undermine executive-led governance. On the contrary, it is a good opportunity for the executive-led system to earn the backing of public opinion. If even this modest degree of flexibility cannot be tolerated, then what strength does our executive-led model truly have?
The moment our 90 legislators cast a conscience vote, they will be showing the world the strength of Hong Kong’s system: unity in the face of moral division, conscience in the service of fairness and justice, and justice delivered with dignity and efficiency. That is also what the people demand of their legislature.


Woman arrested over child abuse in Hong Kong after dashcam video shows boy shoved

Mid-Autumn light show in Yuen Long panned online over stench and execution

Hikers urge live updates on free quota spots to fix Po Pin Chau booking confusion

Hong Kong minister vows to give public account of Queen Mary Hospital lift saga

Hong Kong society

Same-sex partnerships in Hong Kong: conscience vote would set good precedent

Two people pose for a photo with pride flags in Causeway Bay as they hold promotional booths on International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia on May 17. Photo: Eugene Lee

LGBTQ concern groups set up promotional booths in Causeway Bay on International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia on May 17. Photo: Eugene Lee

Hong Kong will benefit from recognising the rights of same-sex couples

A member of the LGBTQ community holds a rainbow flag while taking part in a pride parade in Bangkok. Photo: AFP

Hong Kong LGBTQ groups in push to get public’s support for same-sex rights bill

Couples who have a valid same-sex marriage, partnership or civil union registered in a jurisdiction outside Hong Kong can have their relationship recognised under the proposed registration mechanism. Photo: Felix Wong

Hong Kong authorities have ‘ongoing legal duty’ to fulfil same-sex couples ruling

The proposal is the government’s answer to a 2023 ruling from the Court of Final Appeal, which gave authorities two years to draw up laws setting out “core rights” for same-sex couples, but did not outline what they might be. Photo: Getty Images

Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Erick Tsang has stressed that the proposed mechanism des not equate to recognition of same-sex marriage by the city government. Photo: Jelly Tse

Lawmaker Regina Ip has said passing the bill will enhance the city’s inclusive image, which will help to attract talent. Photo: Jonathan Wong

Opinion

Hong Kong Opinion

News

Hong Kong

Society

Letting lawmakers vote their conscience is a good opportunity for the city’s executive-led system to earn the backing of public opinion


Letting lawmakers vote their conscience is a good opportunity for the city’s executive-led system to earn the backing of public opinion.


LGBTQ

Racism and other prejudice

Legislative Council of Hong Kong (Legco)

Executive Council of Hong Kong

China

Expresses the views, ideas and conclusions of the author. (Eg. Enough of Crazy Rich Asians, think of crazy poor Hongkongers.)


Same-sex partnerships in Hong Kong: conscience vote would set good precedent

.css-1c6uqr6{color:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-family:inherit;line-height:inherit;overflow-wrap:break-word;}Letting lawmakers vote their conscience is a good opportunity for the city’s executive-led system to earn the backing of public opinion

Letting lawmakers vote their conscience is a good opportunity for the city’s executive-led system to earn the backing of public opinion