BBC Monitoring: Hong Kong editorial urges prompt clarification on anti-subversion law

September 16, 2002, Monday
SOURCE: Sunday Morning Post, Hong Kong, in English 15 Sep 02

Text of editorial entitled: 'End the guessing game', published by a Hong Kong newspaper Sunday Morning Post on 15 September.

While many of the fears expressed before the handover about threats to the freedoms of Hong Kong have not materialized, one in particular has continued to be a major source of concern.

Article 23 of the Basic Law, which calls on the SAR Special Administrative Region to pass laws to protect the central government from treason, sedition, subversion and secession, has long cast a shadow over the administration of Hong Kong under 'one country, two systems'.

By their very nature, the proposed laws give rise to concerns they will be used to restrict freedom of expression and crack down on groups targeted by Beijing, such as the Falun Gong. The shadow loomed larger than ever last week as it became clear that these laws are finally on the way. A government consultation paper could be released as early as next month.

As the moment of truth nears, there has been much speculation, rumor and comment on the content of the proposals. Some reports have fuelled concern, suggesting, for example, that mass media may be prosecuted for advancing opinions, such as independence for Taiwan, over a prolonged period of time. Others were more reassuring, promising that international principles
safeguarding human rights would be referred to.

With the government refusing to comment on what is in the consultation paper, the picture which emerges is very unclear. This can only add to the uncertainty which Article 23 engenders.

Secretary for Justice Elsie Leung Oi-sie has sought to calm fears, stressing that freedom of expression will be protected. But she has also spoken of circumstances in which some forms of expression may constitute a crime, further muddying the waters.

The consultation paper should therefore be published as soon as possible, putting a stop to the guessing game. Given the sensitive nature of this issue, it is important that sufficient time be given to the consultation process, and that the government listen carefully to the views expressed.

There is little, if any, evidence that Hong Kong needs these laws. The SAR can hardly be described as a hotbed of subversive activity. But the Basic Law states that Hong Kong 'shall' pass such legislation and do so 'on its own'. It is difficult to see such a step being put off forever.

The best way forward may, therefore, be to implement the legislation, but in a way which ensures that any restriction on freedoms is reduced to an absolute minimum, such as by limiting offences to acts intended to - and likely to - incite imminent violence. Then, perhaps, the uncertainty and anxiety over Article 23 could finally be brought to an end.