Today SCMP reports that the Department of Justice (DoJ) is now planning to make Hong Kong legislation more accessible to the public by adopting a simpler and gender-sensitive writing style. Such initiative will be applied to all legislation starting from this year.
Eamonn Moran, a law draftsman of DoJ, cited Australia and New Zealand as examples of countries that effectively used plain language in legislation to make laws more accessible to the public. Then people don't need to be a legal professional in order to understand what the law is saying.
Under the new style, "he" will no longer be used to denote "she", and we will see "police officer" instead of "policeman" or "lay person" instead of "layman". My puzzle is whether in future legislation we must use "she/he" (lady first).
The word "shall" will be replaced by "must" to impose an obligation. No kidding, in the past I really heard a guy arguing that "shall" is only a future tense expression!
In addition, law drafters will limit unbroken text to about 50 words. Interestingly, SCMP's article mentions one sub-clause under Section 187 of the Securities and Futures Ordinance (SFO), which uses 179 words to explain the use of incriminating evidence in proceedings. Let me end this blog post by reproducing this sub-clause below:
QUOTE
(2) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Ordinance, where-
(a) an authorized person within the meaning of section 179 requires a person to provide or make an explanation or statement under that section; or
(b) an investigator requires a person to give an explanation or further particulars or to give an answer to any question under section 183,
and the explanation or statement, the explanation or further particulars, or the answer (as the case may be) might tend to incriminate the person and the person so claims before providing or making the explanation or statement, giving the explanation or further particulars, or giving the answer (as the case may be), then the requirement as well as the explanation or statement, the explanation or further particulars, or the question and answer (as the case may be) shall not be admissible in evidence against the person in criminal proceedings in a court of law other than those in which the person is charged with an offence under section 179(13), (14) or (15) or 184, or under section 219(2)(a), 253(2)(a) or 254(6)(a) or (b), or under Part V of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap 200), or for perjury, in respect of the explanation or statement, the explanation or further particulars, or the answer (as the case may be).
UNQUOTE
