09/28/2002
"I'M AN ORDINARY citizen. I'm very frightened, very frightened . . .[that the government] wants to legislate. There is no guarantee to what officials have said. I was not consulted. I feel really scared . . ."
"You're scared? What are you afraid of? We have rule of law. What are you afraid of?"
This was one of the exchanges between some jittery callers and Secretary for Security Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee during a radio phone-in programme on Wednesday, in which she sought to allay fears over a government plan to enact an anti-subversion law.
Like many others, the caller, who identified herself only as Lam, might have merely read the newspaper headlines and not studied details of the proposals.
Yet her fears reflected the overall mood and feelings of the community towards the consultation paper on how to implement Article 23 of the Basic Law.
As public confidence in the mainland system remains weak, the government's attempt to translate the concept of national security into local law has triggered anxieties about the possible impact on people's lifestyles.
Over the past five years, concern of the community has been largely focused on whether the promises of keeping "two systems" separate were being honoured - not about how to uphold "one country" under the new constitutional order. The question of "one country" has emerged as the most contentious issue in the Article 23 debate.
This is what the government has emphasised in the newly released consultation paper. It says: "Every nation has laws to protect its sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and national security.
"It is universally accepted that a national owes allegiance to his state, in return for the protection afforded by the state against foreign aggression, and for the provision of a stable, peaceful and orderly society within which to carry out his pursuits. The intent of Article 23 is to prohibit by law acts that would undermine the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and national security of our country."
From a broader perspective, the consultation paper on Article 23 has touched on the core issue of public understanding on the deeper meanings of "one country, two systems".
It hinged on the issue of public understanding and sympathy to the need for "one country" to be upheld while keeping differences between the "two systems".
This is because, as some pro-Beijing newspapers have admitted, the new legislation on national security would mean some restrictions on freedoms such as giving more powers to police in investigating related crimes.
The subtleties of the "one country" element will be central to the debate about the basic question of whether the whole legislative exercise is necessary.
Over the past two weeks, pro-China groups and government-friendly bodies have mounted a massive publicity campaign backing the proposals. [..]
Meanwhile, pro-democracy and human rights activists have tried to focus the debate on whether there is actual need to legislate, and warn of severe damages to civil rights and liberties if the proposals became law.
A divisive debate about the need for new legislation is likely to drag on while discussions continue on details of some of its more contentious proposals. [..]
As the debate on some proposals has shown, the attempt to fully address the question of national security in the new legislation inevitably will enter uncharted waters in rights protection.
They include:
Whether local groups will be banned because of alleged affiliations with groups that are proscribed on the mainland on grounds of national security;
Whether the media faces trouble in reporting matters considered state secrets, such as those concerning central government and SAR relations;
Whether police will get too many powers of emergency entry, search and seizure without a warrant;
Whether national security will be defined by the mainland or by international human rights charter when differences arise.
More questions of "what if" will arise as people look for an answer to the legality of deeds and words if the proposals become legislation.
This is because the line between the "two systems" will become muddled in view of the volatility in relations between the mainland, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Like it or not, the SAR will have to face the fallout of decisions made by the central government.
For instance, Mrs Ip admitted the government would have no way to challenge a decision to ban a group over national security.
She said: "SAR police will not be able to send officers to do our own investigations. We have to accept it. That doesn't mean, however, we will automatically ban a group alleged to have links with them in Hong Kong.
"There are other safeguards in our proposals. We will investigate whether they have affiliations and whether their activities have endangered national security."
Reassuring though Mrs Ip's remarks were, it is inconceivable the Falun Gong will still be able to operate freely in the SAR if it is categorised a threat to national security on the mainland.
In a bid to allay fears about the handover, late paramount leader Deng Xiaoping assured Hong Kong people in 1984 that criticism of the Communist Party would continue to be allowed after 1997.
The insertion of the subversion offence into Article 23 after the June 4 protests has posed a threat to the activities of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Movement in China. Confrontation between the Falun Gong and the mainland regime over the past few years also puts the spotlight on the activists of the spiritual movement in Hong Kong.
Local journalists will feel the heat of tension between Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian and Beijing under the new legislation.
How to strike a balance between national security and rights and freedoms in broad principle and fine details will emerge as the most severe challenge to "one country, two systems" five years after the handover.
* * *
You are welcome to print and circulate all articles published on Clearharmony and their content, but please quote the source.
more ...