International Herald Tribune: Liberties in doubt

October 11, 2002

HONG KONG The recent cave-in by Hong Kong to pressure from Beijing to enact laws against subversion, sedition, secession and theft of state secrets was hardly a surprise. Hong Kong and Chinese government officials have been threatening to do this since Hong Kong's 1997 handover from Britain to China. But the muted response from key governments was surprising and disappointing.

[...]

The U.S. State Department issued a cautious statement, welcoming the three-month public consultation period before new laws are adopted, and expressing hope that the legislation would be "consistent with international human rights standards" and the United Nations human rights treaty to which Hong Kong is a party.

By contrast, civil rights advocates and members of Hong Kong's Legislative Council have been vigorous in criticism of the proposal unveiled by Ip. [...]

But many have objected to key provisions in the consultation document, including proposals to give the police broad new search powers, prohibit groups in Hong Kong from giving support to organisations proscribed under Chinese law for "endangering state security," and criminalise as state secrets (with a five-year prison term) exposure of information on relations between China and Hong Kong.

The document defines treason or attempts to overthrow mainland China's system of government not only in terms of acts of violence but also of "other serious unlawful means," leaving open major potential loopholes. The proposed law would reach Hong Kong permanent residents abroad. So, hypothetically, the Hong Kong government could prosecute someone in Hong Kong for bringing funds to support pro-democracy demonstrators in Beijing, as happened during the protests in 1989. It would also reach foreigners for their acts while in Hong Kong.

Some safeguards are built in, such as review by the Hong Kong courts of decisions to declare foreign political organisations illegal because they are "harmful to national security or unity." But, given Beijing's demonstrated willingness to interfere with Hong Kong's judicial system, how effective would such safeguards be?

The U.S. State Department's most recent report under the U.S.-Hong Kong Policy Act noted concern about the authority of the Court of Final Appeal being undermined by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress in Beijing when it chooses to "reinterpret" certain sensitive court decisions. Is there any doubt that Beijing would intervene again (as it is allowed to do under the Basic Law) if it felt that Hong Kong's courts were not vigorously applying the new laws on subversion and secession? [...]

Autonomy under the "one country, two systems" formula must be strongly defended. The United States, the EU, Canada, Japan, Australia and others should speak up, privately and publicly, to support full protection of Hong Kong's civil and political rights.

The writer is Washington director for Asia at Human Rights Watch. He contributed this comment to the International Herald Tribune.

http://www.iht.com/cgi-bin/generic.cgi?template=articleprint.tmplh&ArticleId=73335