Responses to the “Article 23” legislation in Hong Kong

Comments from the legal profession

Alan Leong, chairman of the HK Bar Association, said according to Reuters (11/10/02) that some of the proposals were "terminators", so draconian that no one would escape if they were targeted. He also said that the authority “will have very, very wide discretion in picking and choosing whom to prosecute, when to prosecute, for what to prosecute". He called for a white paper of the bill for a second round consultation.

Margaret Ng, a legislator representing the legal profession in HK, wrote in the South China Morning Post (9/10/02): “Secretary for Security Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee and her colleagues are trying hard to present the proposed Article 23 legislation as innocuous and something that will not affect the vast majority in Hong Kong. It is nothing of the sort. A careful reading of the consultation paper reveals numerous draconian measures and serious pitfalls. …These proposals … surrender to the [China] central authorities a fundamentally important part of the autonomy provided under the Basic Law.” She supports the call for a white paper.

The Financial Times reported (25/11/02) that Audrey Eu, a legislator and a former chairwoman of the Bar Association, said, "If the central government says that the Falun Gong is a threat to national security, there's very little Hong Kong courts can do,"

Comments from politicians

Martin Lee, Chairman of the Democratic Party, writing in the Wall Street Journal (27/09/02), said that the HK authority “is about to install the necessary legal mechanisms to enable Beijing to suppress the free press and dissident groups in Hong Kong.” In particular: “Under the present proposals, so long as Beijing decides and states that the Falun Gong "endangers national security" in mainland China, … the Hong Kong government would have to take action against Falun Gong followers...”
The China Democracy Party and China Democratic Alliance announced their firm opposition to Article 23 legislation.

South China Morning Post reported 02/10/2002 that Albert Ho, a Democratic legislator, said the anti-subversion law was unnecessary and could easily be abused to criminalise speech and to suppress dissidents Beijing disliked.

Comments from human rights bodies and NGOs

The AFP reported that on 19th September a coalition of 30 NGOs in Hong Kong protested and submitted a petition to the HK government against the proposed legislation.
Mike Jendrzejczyk, Director for Asia at Human Rights Watch wrote in the International Herald Tribune (11/10/02) that, “the muted response from key governments was surprising and disappointing.”

Comments by media organisations

Mr. Cliff Bale, chairman of the Press Freedom Subcommittee of the Hong Kong Journalists Association, wrote in the Wall Street Journal on 10th October that the proposed law “could have a devastating effect on media” He supported the call for a white paper.

Time magazine (7/10/02) commented: “What the Tung administration is doing is handing to Beijing the power to decide who shall do what in Hong Kong. This makes a mockery of the autonomy pledged five years ago.”

The main English paper in HK, South China Morning Post, commented (28/09/02) that, “it is inconceivable the Falun Gong will still be able to operate freely in Hong Kong if it is categorised a threat to national security on the Mainland”.

Comments from the business community

The leading financial and business publications, including the Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal, have lead the criticism of Article 23 legislation and published numerous articles. For example, the FT wrote (30/09/02) : “the legislation will give Beijing absolute control over the mass media and all dissident groups. A large part of Hong Kong's success has been attributable to the independent enforcement of the rule of law. It would be a terrible shame - and a threat to the city's future prosperity - if this were to be replaced by the rule of politics”. It further commented (1/10/02) that “it is becoming harder and harder to argue that it is business as usual in Hong Kong.”

Comments from religious groups

Reuters reported (3/10/02) that Hong Kong Roman Catholic Bishop says he fears the anti-subversion law: “If it materialises, there’ll be a lot of troubles”. The Christian Science Monitor commented (4/10/02) that China “took a big leap backward”.

Comments from other public figures

Hong Kong's former Chief Secretary Anson Chan said, according to AFP (03/10/02), “Its impact on our freedom and our lifestyle is far-reaching. We should encourage the widest possible debate,…the devil is in the detail.” She called for the publication of a white paper.