Australian Financial Review: Backsliding On Civil Liberties

Anne Hyland

(07/30/2002)

For every two steps forward that China takes in its financial market and political reforms which is putting its communist philosophy on a collision course with democratisation Hong Kong moves back two.

Where this backsliding of Hong Kong seems to be most evident is in the growing cacophony of demands in the past few months for an anti-subversion law, known as article 23, to be legislated into existence.

Earlier this month, Chinese vice Premier Qian Qichen, who is responsible for Hong Kong affairs, warned against any further delay in the creation of the new law, following similar comments by other Chinese officials back in
March.

In Hong Kong, the Government chief executive Tung Chee-hwa and justice secretary Elsie Leung have both tried to calm debate on the controversial topic. Leung has promised Hong Kong's 6.7 million constituents that the Government won't blindly follow Beijing's will. Although opponents of the
law aren't buying that reassurance until they see the final drafting of the law when it is eventually put up for debate before the Legislative Council, Hong Kong's ``Parliament''.

No timetable has been specified for the introduction of article 23, although there is a widespread belief that it is likely to be this year, given Leung admitted it could be fast-tracked.

Article 23 requires the Government to effect legislation to prohibit treason, secession, sedition and subversion against the Chinese Government.

Human rights and democracy advocates believe such a law is a bogey man for the Western-style civil liberties guaranteed for 50 years to Hong Kong after its return to Chinese sovereignty in 1997. If such a law were enacted it could directly affect religious groups like Falun Gong, which are permitted to protest in Hong Kong, but are outlawed on the mainland. It could potentially see the arrest of labour union officials leading demonstrations or journalists reporting on matters which fall within the grey area of ``state secrets''.

``All the signs are that the Hong Kong Government is looking at introducing a law that could violate human rights,'' Law Yuk-kai, director of the Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor, told The Australian Financial Review. ``We have grave concerns about legislating this kind of proposal.''

Law's concerns were echoed last week by the British Foreign Ministry, which said that Hong Kong had done reasonably well in the five years since it returned to China under ``one country, two systems''. However, Britain noted the concerns that Hong Kong was becoming less tolerant of demonstrations and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw warned Hong Kong's ``freedom of assembly and speech must not be compromised''.

Hong Kong recently brought criminal charges against three pro-democracy campaigners for staging unauthorised protests. The territory stirred more controversy when it refused to permit a visit by former Chinese labour camp inmate and US citizen Harry Wu, who is now an activist.

As well, 16 followers of Falun Gong are being tried for allegedly creating a public obstruction when they protested outside the Chinese Government liaison office in Hong Kong.

Former Hong Kong US Consul-General Michael Klosson said if article 23 was simply implemented to circumscribe politically sensitive activities, people in the international community would demand to know what was happening to the ``one country, two systems'' arrangement.

The Hong Kong Bar Association also weighed into the debate last week and said the territory does not need a new subversion law because existing laws already cater for offences such as sedition and treason.

Another argument is that the territory has been politically stable for five years under Chinese sovereignty without any law on secession or subversion. The lack of support here for the independence of Taiwan or Tibet is also evidence that unpalatable political activities in the territory are unlikely.

Hong Kong government officials have stood by article 23 stating it is necessary to have a balance between one's rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly and the wider interest of the community.

Whatever, the justifications for the anti-subversion law, it's clear that if introduced it could be the litmus test of the integrity of the ``one country, two systems'' arrangement.

And, although unlikely, it could for the first time see Hong Kong standing up to Beijing. While this is happening the international community will be keeping a watchful eye on it.