Responses to the Draft Article 23 Bill in Hong Kong

After the consultation period for Article 23 legislation ended in December, the Hong Kong government published the draft bill on 13/2/03.

The new Hong Kong Bar Association Chairman, Edward Chan, slammed the draft bill as something "evil" that would tarnish HK’s image and harm democracy and freedoms in the territory. (AFP 26/2/2003). The HK Bar Association stated that the draft bill “allows decision-making in the Mainland to be to the basis for proscription in HK.” (13/2/03)

Hong Kong Chief Justice Andrew Li, in a coded message against the draft bill, called on HK people to exercise "vigilance...in relation to the formulation and enactment of new laws". He said that "rule of law is the proper and effective protection of the individual rights and freedoms which are the heart of HK’s separate legal system". (Times 4/3/03)

Ronny Tong QC wrote in Ming Pao, “This clause (secret trial relating to the proscription mechanism) would pose immeasurable threat to the basic freedom of association in HK” (18/2/03)

Bishop Joseph Zen, the head of HK's Catholics, said that the draft bill was "very bad". (AFP 21/2/2003)

Dr Margaret Ng, a legislator representing the legal profession in HK, called revision to the proscription mechanism "minor cosmetic modifications" (Times 4/3/03) "Despite all those so-called safeguards, nothing has been improved," she said. (SCMP, 14/2/03)

The President of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong, Janet De Silva, stated “It is our recommendation, in view of the wording of the Basic Law and the principle of "one country, two systems" that aspects of the PRC law should not be linked, directly or indirectly, into the National Security legislation.” In particular, “subsection 2c (proscription of HK organisations subordinate to mainland organisations banned in China on grounds of national security) remains problematic, even taking into account changes made thus far.” (7/3/03)

The US-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) warned in a memorandum to the Hong Kong Security Bureau, "in its current form, this bill poses a grave threat to freedom of expression" in the territory. (AFP 21/2/2003). The HK Journalists Association criticized the government for "ignoring public opinion". (13/2/03)

The HK Human Rights Monitor stated “The proposed power to ban organisations subordinate to Mainland organisations banned on national security grounds remains open to abuse” and “is outside the remit of Article 23”. (12/3/03)

Article 23 Concern Group stated “A number of serious problems remain. For example...proscription of local organisations will continue to incriminate mere association”. (14/2/03)

South China Morning Post stated “not only will the new law pose a threat to the free flow of information in cyberspace, it also makes a further blow to the already sluggish IT industry". (18/02/2003)

The Guardian stated, “In particular a new ban on organisations that "endanger national security" could easily be extended to the Falun Gong or any other body linked to a proscribed group on the mainland...there is a more general perception that the government is going to bulldoze the laws through LegCo..." (20/02/03)

The Times reported that the proposal that most worries Gladys Li, the chairman of Hong Kong "Justice” is the new proscription mechanism. (4/3/2003)

The Daily Telegraph published that Law Yuk-kai of the HK Human Rights Monitor said: "The bill is a blank cheque for the government to ban any group in Hong Kong." (14/02/2003)

BBC Monitoring quoted the South China Morning Post in syaing that, “...Although the clause is narrower than that originally proposed, groups such as the Falun Gong and the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of the Patriotic Democratic Movement in China believe they could still be trapped..." (14/2/03)

The Wall Street Journal commented “the legislation allows authorities to use Beijing’s decision...as the basis for banning affiliated bodies in Hong Kong”, which the papers said was the “most controversial proposal of all”. (14/2/03)