Article 23
Feedback:by email
Other Useful links
World Time Clock Exchange
Rates Nationsonline.org
Amnesty
International Reporters w/o
borders
Sister Joan - Bangkok
BKK Magazine
The opinions expressed on these pages are entirely personal unless they are credited; you may not agree with all, or anything, that I write. So please use the feedback page to respond, comment or berate me.
Hong Kong's crisis and Beijing's dilemma
9 July 2003
In a land where saving face is ingrained in the culture have no doubts how much face Tung Chee-hwa has lost.
And the speed with which he has been dumped by his erstwhile allies in the Liberal Party and the the
Tung has withdrawn the proposed security legislation that was demanded by Beijing. In doing so he has undermined his authority and embarrassed his master in Beijing who hand-picked him for the Chief Executive's role in Hong Kong.
It is a massive victory for all the decent, hard working and articulate people of Hong Kong. It is a vote for reason and common sense. It is a belated acknowledgement that the people have a right to be heard and that their concerns deserve attention.
In demanding that the puppet government (that is what it was) push through the security legislation Beijing clearly misread the mood of the people of Hong Kong. Beijing has woken up to the fact that the people of Hong Kong are not as compliant as the mainland Chinese and that they cannot be bullied into submission.
What Beijing does next will say much about the future relationship between Beijing and Hong Kong and much about their commitment to one country, two systems.
In a western democracy, the government of Hong Kong would have massively lost a no confidence vote; and election would be held and a new government elected. Hong Kong is now rudderless. The Chief Executive has seen his first officers scurry away into their political lifeboats. He is left on the bridge, maybe with the faithful and foolish Regina IP, and they will be the last to leave. The biggest hope is that they do not go down with the ship.
After all the collapse of the security act and the clear statement of independence and confidence by the people could be just the shot in the arm that Hong Kong needs to bring foreign confidence and investment back into Hong Kong.
Will China replace Mr. Tung? The Basic Law makes no provision for a leader to step down mid term other than allowing him to resign for "ill-health or other reasons". But this will embarrass China's leaders who have publicly stood by and praised Mr. Tung.
And what precedent does this outburst of public disaffection set for the mainland. Suddenly it appears that at least in Hong Kong people want a greater say in how they are governed. Maybe one of the results of the SARS outbreak is people have discovered that there is more to living life than making money.
My guess is that in three to six months Tung Chee-hwa will be too ill to continue in office. He will get a nice fat pension and retire. It is far less clear who would replace him. His successor will then pass a significantly watered down anti subversion law early in 2004.
One lesson that the people of Hong Kong have learned now is that they can make a difference and they can cause change to happen. They should never be under-estimated again. Theirs has been a wake-up call not just to Hong Kong and China but a call that could reverberate around Asia.
Christine Loh is CEO of the Hong Kong think tank, www.civic-exchange.org. this is her newsletter from 2 July 2003.
Dear Subscribers & Friends,
Get out, be heard, speak up while you still can
Protest in Hong Kong on 1 July 2003
30 June 2003
On July 1, the sixth anniversary of the return of Hong Kong to China, there will be the biggest demonstration to date against the new security laws being proposed by the government of Hong Kong under Article 23 of the basic law, and likely to be passed into legislation on July 9 2003.
Perhaps the most telling reason to condemn this new legislation is the wave of protests that have been raised through professional and religious groups. Many of Hong Kong's' most articulate, educated and thoughtful people see the potential damage that this legislation can cause, and understand how its provisions can be used to muzzle their own voices and to take away their freedoms.
Academics. journalists, church representatives, lawyers, human rights representatives have all articulated their concerns and will be at the forefront of the protests.
For the business tycoons who run Hong Kong and who dominate its unelected government this legislation is a part of their duty to China and continues to smooth the way for their trading links and investments. These people are too busy making money to understand the potential dangers of this unhappy legislation.
If you are in Hong Kong and have any love for the city and its people you should join this protest on 1 July.
Timetable of Events:
| June 27 - Members of the
Democratic Party start a 100-hour hunger strike June 28-29 - Exhibition, anti-Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa T-shirt sale, and publicity for the march around Hong Kong July 1 - Prayer gathering at 1.30pm in Victoria Park hosted by Catholic and Protestant groups July 1 - 100,000 are expected to march from Victoria Park to the Central Government Offices at 3pm July 7-9 - Representatives of the Federation of Students to hold a sit-in and hunger strike outside Legco July 9 - The National Security (Legislative Provisions) Bill will be put to a vote in Legco July 11 - Catholic and Protestant groups hold 7.30pm gathering outside Legco to pray for the future after the enactment of the bill July 13 - More than 50 groups to hold a democracy rally in Central, calling for universal suffrage to elect the chief executive and Legco in 2007 and 2008 respectively |
Hong Kong's flawed law
Editorial; The Guardian, 30 June 2003
| Hong
Kong has faded from Britian's horizon since it returned to China - in spite
of all the pledges that we would "never forget". The only story to attract
attention recently has been the dismal one of Sars. Tomorrow, on the sixth
anniversary of the July 1 1997 handover, tens of thousands of Hong Kongers
will demonstrate on an issue requiring Britain's closest attention - the
anti-subversion law that is about to be driven through the mostly unelected
legislative council.
No one denies that, under article 23 of China's "Basic Law", Hong Kong will have to legislate against subversion, sedition and other such acts against the state. Yet although the Basic Law says that Hong Kong should do so "on its own", senior Hong Kong officials admit that both its timing and content have been agreed in advance with Beijing. The most worrying clause requires the government to proscribe any group found to be linked to an already proscribed mainland organisation. The obvious example is the Falun Gong sect, already banned on the mainland where it is claimed, ludicrously, to be a threat to national security. There are few illusions that Hong Kong's secretary for security, if asked to proscribe the Falun Gong's local chapter, would dissent from that demand. Another provision banning the disclosure of "state secrets" causes particular concern for Hong Kong's media, which has become more vulnerable to pressure since the handover. The government has rejected calls for a public interest defence to be allowed. Chief executive Tung Chee-hwa is already deeply unpopular as a result of the Sars crisis, which he initially played down so as not to point the finger at China's own cover-up. More than 70 % in a University of Hong Kong poll believe that Mr Tung has listened more to Beijing than to his own people in rushing ahead with the new legislation. He has also back-pedalled on initiating the "political review" which many hope will lead to fully democratic elections before the end of the decade. The new anti-subversion bill, if passed as it stands, will do nothing to encourage international confidence in Hong Kong's future. It also violates the principle behind the 1984 Sino-British agreement that Hong Kong's rule of law should remain unchanged. Britain, which has much better relations with China now than before, should say so clearly. |
Repression in Hong Kong
International Herald Tribune 28 June 2003
Taking advantage of preoccupation in Hong Kong with the SARS epidemic, the territory's pro-Beijing government has been pushing along a noxious national security bill that would leave the territory vulnerable to the sort of political repression common on the Communist mainland. It may be too late to block the law, which looks likely to pass on July 9. But it should be made clear to Beijing that nobody buys its justifications for this repressive measure.
The measure, known as Article 23, deals with treason, sedition, subversion and the theft of state secrets, and includes provisions that would enable the Hong Kong government to crack down on organizations deemed to be linked to any that are banned in China, such as Falun Gong. That would seriously erode the autonomy that the former British colony was promised when it came under China's rule six years ago under the formula of "one country, two systems."
Some governments, including the United States and Canada, have already protested, as have many human-rights organizations, prompting predictable squawks from Beijing against meddling in its internal affairs. That can hardly be said of opponents in Hong Kong, who turned out in the tens of thousands on the 14th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square uprising, and now plan an even larger protest against Article 23 for July 1, the anniversary of the turnover of Hong Kong. The resistance draws on an expanding coalition of human-rights groups, independent politicians, trade unions, journalists, academics and students. They have correctly identified the bill as a challenge to their autonomy and fundamental freedoms, and as an attempt to impose China's arbitrary legal system on Hong Kong through the back door.
China argues that Article 23 is not much different from the laws of some democratic states. That may be so, but democratic societies have checks and balances that China and other Communist states do not; in the latter, national security laws have long been a primary tool for silencing critics and subverting freedoms. The fate of Falun Gong is but one example. Another is SARS: Under the new law, the dogged newspapers of Hong Kong might have been forced into the same disgraceful and dangerous silence as the mainland press.
China's rulers have also portrayed Article 23 as a critical test of national sovereignty. It is really an assault on the freedoms they promised to respect in Hong Kong for 50 years. Even if the bill cannot be stopped, it should be widely exposed and condemned for the repressive measure it really is.
Get out, be heard, speak up while you still can
Protest in Hong Kong on 1 July 2003
30 June 2003
On July 1, the sixth anniversary of the return of Hong Kong to China, there will be the biggest demonstration to date against the new security laws being proposed by the government of Hong Kong under Article 23 of the basic law, and likely to be passed into legislation on July 9 2003.
Perhaps the most telling reason to condemn this new legislation is the wave of protests that have been raised through professional and religious groups. Many of Hong Kong's' most articulate, educated and thoughtful people see the potential damage that this legislation can cause, and understand how its provisions can be used to muzzle their own voices and to take away their freedoms.
Academics. journalists, church representatives, lawyers, human rights representatives have all articulated their concerns and will be at the forefront of the protests.
For the business tycoons who run Hong Kong and who dominate its unelected government this legislation is a part of their duty to China and continues to smooth the way for their trading links and investments. These people are too busy making money to understand the potential dangers of this unhappy legislation.
If you are in Hong Kong and have any love for the city and its people you should join this protest on 1 July.
Timetable of Events:
| June 27 - Members of the
Democratic Party start a 100-hour hunger strike June 28-29 - Exhibition, anti-Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa T-shirt sale, and publicity for the march around Hong Kong July 1 - Prayer gathering at 1.30pm in Victoria Park hosted by Catholic and Protestant groups July 1 - 100,000 are expected to march from Victoria Park to the Central Government Offices at 3pm July 7-9 - Representatives of the Federation of Students to hold a sit-in and hunger strike outside Legco July 9 - The National Security (Legislative Provisions) Bill will be put to a vote in Legco July 11 - Catholic and Protestant groups hold 7.30pm gathering outside Legco to pray for the future after the enactment of the bill July 13 - More than 50 groups to hold a democracy rally in Central, calling for universal suffrage to elect the chief executive and Legco in 2007 and 2008 respectively |
Hong Kong's flawed law
Editorial; The Guardian, 30 June 2003
| Hong
Kong has faded from Britian's horizon since it returned to China - in spite
of all the pledges that we would "never forget". The only story to attract
attention recently has been the dismal one of Sars. Tomorrow, on the sixth
anniversary of the July 1 1997 handover, tens of thousands of Hong Kongers
will demonstrate on an issue requiring Britain's closest attention - the
anti-subversion law that is about to be driven through the mostly unelected
legislative council.
No one denies that, under article 23 of China's "Basic Law", Hong Kong will have to legislate against subversion, sedition and other such acts against the state. Yet although the Basic Law says that Hong Kong should do so "on its own", senior Hong Kong officials admit that both its timing and content have been agreed in advance with Beijing. The most worrying clause requires the government to proscribe any group found to be linked to an already proscribed mainland organisation. The obvious example is the Falun Gong sect, already banned on the mainland where it is claimed, ludicrously, to be a threat to national security. There are few illusions that Hong Kong's secretary for security, if asked to proscribe the Falun Gong's local chapter, would dissent from that demand. Another provision banning the disclosure of "state secrets" causes particular concern for Hong Kong's media, which has become more vulnerable to pressure since the handover. The government has rejected calls for a public interest defence to be allowed. Chief executive Tung Chee-hwa is already deeply unpopular as a result of the Sars crisis, which he initially played down so as not to point the finger at China's own cover-up. More than 70 % in a University of Hong Kong poll believe that Mr Tung has listened more to Beijing than to his own people in rushing ahead with the new legislation. He has also back-pedalled on initiating the "political review" which many hope will lead to fully democratic elections before the end of the decade. The new anti-subversion bill, if passed as it stands, will do nothing to encourage international confidence in Hong Kong's future. It also violates the principle behind the 1984 Sino-British agreement that Hong Kong's rule of law should remain unchanged. Britain, which has much better relations with China now than before, should say so clearly. |
Repression in Hong Kong
International Herald Tribune 28 June 2003
Taking advantage of preoccupation in Hong Kong with the SARS epidemic, the territory's pro-Beijing government has been pushing along a noxious national security bill that would leave the territory vulnerable to the sort of political repression common on the Communist mainland. It may be too late to block the law, which looks likely to pass on July 9. But it should be made clear to Beijing that nobody buys its justifications for this repressive measure.
The measure, known as Article 23, deals with treason, sedition, subversion and the theft of state secrets, and includes provisions that would enable the Hong Kong government to crack down on organizations deemed to be linked to any that are banned in China, such as Falun Gong. That would seriously erode the autonomy that the former British colony was promised when it came under China's rule six years ago under the formula of "one country, two systems."
Some governments, including the United States and Canada, have already protested, as have many human-rights organizations, prompting predictable squawks from Beijing against meddling in its internal affairs. That can hardly be said of opponents in Hong Kong, who turned out in the tens of thousands on the 14th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square uprising, and now plan an even larger protest against Article 23 for July 1, the anniversary of the turnover of Hong Kong. The resistance draws on an expanding coalition of human-rights groups, independent politicians, trade unions, journalists, academics and students. They have correctly identified the bill as a challenge to their autonomy and fundamental freedoms, and as an attempt to impose China's arbitrary legal system on Hong Kong through the back door.
China argues that Article 23 is not much different from the laws of some democratic states. That may be so, but democratic societies have checks and balances that China and other Communist states do not; in the latter, national security laws have long been a primary tool for silencing critics and subverting freedoms. The fate of Falun Gong is but one example. Another is SARS: Under the new law, the dogged newspapers of Hong Kong might have been forced into the same disgraceful and dangerous silence as the mainland press.
China's rulers have also portrayed Article 23 as a critical test of national sovereignty. It is really an assault on the freedoms they promised to respect in Hong Kong for 50 years. Even if the bill cannot be stopped, it should be widely exposed and condemned for the repressive measure it really is.
Human Rights Watch Asia
The three month consultation period for the proposed Article 23 legislation ended on 24 December. Human Rights Watch Asia was one of many organisations that submitted their comments to the Chief Executive.
Human Rights Watch Asia can be found here: http://www.hrw.org/asia/index.php
| Open Letter
to Hong Kong Chief Executive C.H. Tung Re: Proposals to Implement Article 23 of Hong Kong's Basic Law |
|
December 23, 2002 Dear Chief Executive Tung: We write to express Human Rights Watch's profound concern that proposals by your government to implement Article 23 of Hong Kong's Basic Law will seriously undermine civil liberties and civil society in Hong Kong. The three-month consultation period your administration set aside expires on December 24. Given the enormous public interest from the legal, media, political, religious, and business sectors, we urge your government to continue to seek the widest possible public consultation on a specific text before introducing it to the Legislative Council. Because of the far-reaching consequences and sweeping nature of national security laws, it is impossible to have genuine and meaningful consultation without being able to analyze the specific text of such laws. It is thus vital that experts, interested parties, and Hong Kong people have the opportunity to comment not only on the generalities of the proposed new laws, but the specifics. In particular, where entirely new categories of offenses alien to the common law are being created, such as subversion, it will be essential to thoroughly review and assess the impact of the new laws on society. Both legal and business groups have urged the publication of a White Paper that would contain the exact language proposed in the new law. We encourage you to support this call, particularly as a more methodical approach to consultation may increase public support for any legislation that ultimately emerges. Preserving Fundamental Freedoms The 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration guarantees explicitly that all of Hong Kong's freedoms--including press freedom, religious freedom, and freedom of association and assembly-- will continue. They are guaranteed by Hong Kong's strong tradition of adherence to the rule of law and its international commitments under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. These obligations require full compliance. However, aspects of the proposed laws raise serious questions about the HKSAR's commitment to both the International Covenant and the rule of law. Article 23 states that: "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People's Government, or theft of state secrets, to prohibit foreign political organizations or bodies from conducting political activities in the Region, and to prohibit political organizations or bodies of the Region from establishing ties with foreign political organizations or bodies." However, as the Hong Kong Bar Association and numerous legal authorities have stated, in most areas the existing laws of the HKSAR are sufficient to prohibit the acts and activities listed in Article 23. Indeed, Hong Kong people have consistently and peacefully exercised their human rights within the rule of law. In the five years since the territory's transfer of sovereignty from the United Kingdom to the People's Republic of China, there have been no significant political upheavals. Any consultation process must first consider whether new legislation of the scope proposed by your government is at all necessary. Most legal commentators who have reviewed the consultation document have concluded that it is not. Perhaps most important, concepts such as treason, secession, sedition, subversion, and state secrets are traditionally vague and open for selective abuse. They, therefore, must be drawn as narrowly as possible. Although the consultation document states the goal of using only precise terms, many of the terms actually proposed are far from precise. Broad New Offenses Will Erode Human Rights Human Rights Watch is especially concerned about new offenses under Article 23 that relate directly to freedom of expression, including sedition, the "theft of state secrets," and treason ("instigating a foreigner to invade the PRC"). A free and unfettered media and a free flow of information have been and will continue to be essential to Hong Kong's long-term success. If businesses want to work in an atmosphere of censorship, self-censorship, and limits on information, then Hong Kong will lose its competitive advantage; enterprises and corporations will simply move to the mainland. The proposed law's definition of "seditious publications," under which those who publish information inciting others to "commit treason, secession or subversion" or "endangering the stability of China and Hong Kong" can be jailed for seven years, is certain to have a chilling effect on the free flow of information. Much political commentary could be construed by some as inciting others to "commit treason, secession or subversion." If an individual wishes to express such sentiments it is his or her right. Acts, not words, should be punishable in a modern, rights-respecting society. Use of the term "stability" also raises serious concerns. Mainland China and Hong Kong are stable political entities. It is unthinkable that a publication could threaten the stability of either. This inherently imprecise term is often used to arbitrarily punish or censor publications in countries around the world. It is a term that should not be introduced into Hong Kong law, as no editor or journalist will know when they have crossed the line from legal into illegal speech, and no government can adequately assure publications that a future government will not misuse such a provision. The proposal dealing with the subject of "theft of state secrets" or publishing of "unauthorized" news could affect both Hong Kong and overseas reporters. Human Rights Watch believes it must be up to journalists to report any news in the public interest, and that this is a fundamental freedom essential to protecting all other rights. Under this provision information about relations between the mainland government and the HKSAR would be defined as a "state secret." Again, these terms are overbroad and would put at risk any journalist who published even a routine story about China-Hong Kong relations. Editors and journalists remain concerned and confused about the case of Xi Yang, who in 1994 published what appeared to be a routine story about economics but later was imprisoned in China for publishing an article based on information not officially released about government financial policies. Academics, financial researchers, and NGOs could be threatened as well. Interference in Hong Kong Law by China Human Rights Watch is particularly concerned that the proposed new laws under Article 23 give the Secretary for Security wide authority to ban local and foreign political organizations. According to the proposals, a declaration by the Chinese government that an organization endangers China's national security could be sufficient grounds for triggering investigations (or harassment) and possibly for a subsequent ban of a Hong Kong organization. This greatly increases the possibility of Chinese government intervention in Hong Kong. This provision introduces Chinese law and Chinese political control into Hong Kong through the back door, and is a clear violation of both the letter and spirit of the Basic Law. This is particularly worrying since the statements of senior Chinese government officials make it appear that the impetus for the changes to Hong Kong's legal system has come not from the people of Hong Kong, but rather from Beijing. In February Li Peng urged the adoption of a new law, while in late June, when Hong Kong marked five years of return to Chinese sovereignty, Qian Qichen, China's deputy prime minister responsible for Hong Kong affairs, and other senior Chinese government officials told the Hong Kong government to enact a subversion law as soon as possible. Mr. Qian also warned that the group Falun Gong should be banned as an "evil cult." Confidence in the independence of Hong Kong's legal system was further undermined by comments from senior officials, including the Secretary for Security, that the views of Beijing will be given weight when deciding whether to prosecute the Hong Kong media under Article 23 of the Basic Law. In this context, of particular concern to Human Rights Watch is that the proposals for the implementation of Article 23 are similar to national security laws on the Mainland. As Human Rights Watch has documented over the past decade, in China similar subversion laws are regularly used to convict and imprison journalists, labor activists, Internet entrepreneurs, and academics. The Chinese government has tried and sentenced many activists who used the Internet to promote causes ranging from political change to worker rights. All were charged with subversion. Now that Hong Kong is part of China, these examples, taken together with the proposed language of the new subversion laws, give reason for concern that human rights in Hong Kong may be under threat. The consultation documents state that the Hong Kong courts will act as the ultimate safeguard against arbitrary application of any new laws, such as which organizations could be banned. But the decision by Chinese Communist Party's Standing Committee to overrule a decision of the Hong Kong courts in 1999 undermined the previously high confidence in the independence of the Hong Kong judiciary. Can the HKSAR guarantee that a similar intervention could not happen if Beijing was not satisfied with the decision of the Hong Kong courts in implementing these new laws? Popular Concern Concerns about Article 23 are not part of an abstract discussion. Many groups and individuals have written to your government to express their dismay at the planned changes to Hong Kong laws. Last week, there was a large public demonstration with tens of thousands of participants--many more than even the organizers hoped would attend. We strongly urge your administration to listen to these voices of civil society and to Hong Kong's friends in the international community before moving forward to implement any new laws on subversion. We also wish to add that the preservation of Hong Kong's rule of law, along with basic rights and freedoms in Hong Kong, provides an important example for China's own reforms and progress in these areas. We thus hope your government will not end its public consultation on Article 23 on December 24, but will present the draft legislation first to the public for comment and initiate an even wider discussion about the impact such laws will have on Hong Kong's vibrant free press and free society. We urge your government to amend the draft to address adequately all these concerns before the draft is introduced to the Legislative Council for the legislative process. Finally, senior officials in your government regularly argue that Article 23 of the Basic Law requires them to legislate to prohibit subversion and other offenses. Yet the Basic Law also mandates a move toward democratic election of the legislature and chief executive with the ultimate goal of "universal suffrage," a process that has not begun. We urge you to explain to the people of Hong Kong why the provisions of Article 23, which could have a serious impact on fundamental human rights, must be implemented so urgently while one of the core principles of the Basic Law--the right of people to choose their own leaders--is being ignored. On June 25, 2002, Deputy Prime Minister Qian Qichen, asserted that the current system, in which only half the Legislative Council may be directly elected, should be "kept intact." But the best long-term guarantor of civil liberties is a government accountable to and responsive to its people, together with an independent judiciary. We urge your government to initiate the process of instituting a fully democratic system as soon as possible. This is a more urgent priority than implementing the provisions of Article 23. Thank you for your consideration.
Brad Adams |
International Herald Tribune trashes Article 23
15 December 2002
There is no more to do than repeat the final paragraph of Philip Bowring's commentary in the IHT on 3 December 2002.
"Article 23 legislation us another chapter in the book of Tung's failure to lead Hong Kong and represent its wider interests. It reflects the lack of accountability of the elite which dominates his so-called ministerial system. The legislation is a symptom of the exclusion form government of a well- educated public and confirms the view that Hong Kong is moving in the opposite direction to most of East Asia, China included."
The IHT's archive is at www.iht.com
The US calls for a white paper for article 23 in Hong Kong - how ironic !
23 November 2002
The US state department issued a statement yesterday calling for the SAR government in Hong Kong to issue a white paper for public consultation with the exact wording of the proposed Article 23 legislation.
The fact that the US government has made this statement indicates just how serious the issue of Article 23 is.
It also indicates that the SAR government has to date done a poor job of "selling" the proposed legislation and answering the genuine questions and concerns of interested parties.
The USA certainly has a right to be an interested party. Many US citizens are resident in Hong Kong. The article 23 proposals may impact on their personal freedoms.
The trouble is that this is simply not the right time for the USA to be preaching to the rest of the world on the subject of individual freedoms ! This is the country that assassinated alleged terrorists in Yemen without trial. A country deeply fearful of attacks on their homeland, deeply suspicious of foreigners (except Tony Blair, Mr. Bush's favourite poodle), A country that in its fear is embracing the harsh policies of the ultra right wing and a country where Donald Rumsfeld can command a near bottomless budget.
Domestic criticism of the US government is almost non existent. If you are not with us you are against us is the message.
The US State Department may just need to check what is happening in their own country before they start to tell the SAR government what to do !
Issue a white bill for article 23
31 October 2002
The motives of Hong Kong's government are becoming ever more obvious. They want to manage the interests of Beijing; not the interests of the people of Hong Kong.
There is a widespread belief that the government should produce a white bill for the article 23 legislation. This would be an actual draft of the bill giving precise details of the proposed laws; white bills are issued for public consultation.
But the government wants to move directly form its discussion document to a blue bill which would be presented to the "yes men and women" in the Legislative Council.
The government appears to believe that the issues are too complex for serious public debate. But that severely underestimates the intelligence of Hong Kong people and the extent to which they are interested in this subject. It is a serious issue; the people take it seriously and they deserve a leadership that takes them seriously as well.
Some questions that I think we need black and white answers to.
And those are not easy to get from this government
30 September 2002
Why is the government only producing its proposals on Article 23 for consultation? Why cant we see a "White Paper" detailing the proposed legislation?
If (please let this be speculation only) there was another Tianenmen Square would the people of HKG be able to turn up in hundreds of thousands to protest the following day?
If fighting breaks out between China and Taiwan what will happen to the Taiwanese in Hong Kong?
If fighting breaks out between China and Taiwan would it be legal or illegal to express support for the Taipei government? Would we be expected to sit without comment while an authoritarian regime invades a free and democratic society ?
Article 23 is ill-considered legislation and ill-advised timing
26 September 2002
On Tuesday of this week a paper addressing the implementation of Article 23 of the Basic Law was released for three months consultation.
The proposals deal with treason, secession, subversion and sedition.
In 1984 Britain and China signed the Joint Declaration defining the terms under which sovereignty of Hong Kong would revert to China in 1997. The Basic Law is China's codification of the Joint Declaration into a constitutional and legal framework for governing Hong Kong as a special administrative region of the People's Republic.
Article 23 was brought into the Basic Law by Beijing after one million Hong Kong people took to the streets to protest the slaughter of students and demonstrators in Tianenmen Square on 4 June 1989.
Martin Lee, then Chairman of the Hong Kong Bar Association, had been invited by Beijing to be a member of the drafting committee of the Basic Law. On 5 June he symbolically and publicly burned his copy of the draft. In Beijing he was branded a subversive and formally banned from the committee.
By early 1990 Article 23 had been written into the basic law. Strong protests from the British and from Martin Lee and others were to no avail. The article contained a general prohibition of "subversion against the Central People's Government".
Why do we get this proposal now. If has not been rushed through over the last five years as Hong Kong and China have been trying to gain confidence in the concept of "one country, two systems". Beijing has demanded that Hong Kong delays this legislation no further. The timing for Hong Kong could not be worse.
So what is wrong with the proposed legislation.
Well lets start with the government's perception. On Tuesday, Tung Chee-hwa confidently stated that "Human rights and civil liberties are the pillars of our success. I will protect them" He continued, " In drawing up our proposals for the legislation, we have in fact compared them with similar laws in many western countries. I find our proposals both liberal and reasonable".
Oh dear ! What Mr. Tung forgets is that we do not have the right to vote out a government that abuses its powers. Who is Mr. Tung accountable to. Certainly (sadly) not the people of Hong Kong. He is accountable to Beijing. This is not government of the people, for the people by the people ! Why do we need Article 23.
There should be three areas of wide concern in the proposals:
i) It is proposed that an organisation in Hong Kong can be banned if it is affiliated to a mainland organisation that has been cited as endangering national security.
Now Falun Gong for instance has not branded as a threat to national security, it has been classified as an evil cult. But the move to banning Falun Gong and other similar movements can be easily made, And the Hong Kong operation of any such group would be charged with endangering state security.
ii) The police are given new powers under the proposals to enter and search without a warrant where an act of treason is suspected. What is wrong with getting a court order to break into someone's home?
iii) The proposals also include new provisions on the theft of state secrets that appear to specifically target Hong Kong's already largely compliant media. Unauthorised or damaging disclosure of protected information obtained by unauthorised means would be a criminal act. And protected information is now deemed to include that "relating to relations between the Central Authorities of the PRC and the Hong Kong SAR". So if the government is embarrassed it simply sues the media ! This is far too open ended a proposal.
Lets deal with the timing issue. Hong Kong is facing a crisis of confidence, from inside, and looking in from the outside. Our international standing is weak. Our economy is weaker.
On the inside those people that have jobs are doing all they can to hang on to them. Unemployment is at record high levels with little sign of any short term reduction. Meanwhile property prices have fallen some 50% to 60% below 1997 peak levels. Many people are sitting on negative equity or managing high mortgages. Bankruptcies, mortgage and credit card defaults are commonplace. I fear we simply do not have the energy to fight over Article 23. We are too busy trying to get by right now.
From the outside looking in - this just looks like one more nail in the coffin of a free and vibrant Hong Kong that is governed according to instructions from Beijing. Hong Kong is widely seen as losing its unique appeal and its unique position in the world economy as it is eroded by Beijing in favour of other mainland cities.
What is likely to happen. Not a lot sadly. There is no doubt that the proposals have already been discussed with and approved by Beijing. There will not be much encouragement to debate or amend the proposals. And I do not believe that the Hong Kong government is empowered to make changes without reference to Beijing.
The law will be passed. There are unlikely to be any major prosecutions under the law. What the law will do is act as a silent deterrent. People will worry about what happens if they attend a demonstration, write an article, or make a speech, that is critical of Beijing. They will think twice about attending rallies in support of separatist groups in Taiwan or Tibet. How do you avoid getting into trouble? Some things will not get discussed. Not knowing where the line gets drawn or knowing that the line can be moved at any time will make people wary. Margaret Ng in the SCMP put this much better. She said, "Society will be hushed and then fall silent".
What can you do :
Views on the proposals can be sent to the Security Bureau (a rather unfortunate name) via mail, by fax (2521 2848) or by email (bl23@sb.gov.hk). Please do make your voice heard.
