Telegram on November 22, 2002 from London by Qinchuan, Epoch Times (Europe) reporter
The Hong Kong SAR’s plan to legislate an Anti-Subversion Law on the basis of Article 23 of the Basic Law has raised more and more international concerns. Mr. Martin Lee, Chairman of the Democratic Party of Hong Kong made a trip to the United Kingdom to call on the British government and parliamentarians to pay due attention to this matter. Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, while meeting Martin Lee in London, reiterated that the UK has a responsibility to ensure that the rights and freedoms enjoyed by Hong Kong citizens, as guaranteed in the Sino-British Joint Declaration, should be maintained. On November 21, the State Department of the United States also made a declaration with regards to the Article 23 of the Basic Law, warning the Hong Kong authorities that the proposed Anti-Subversion Law should not erode the human rights and freedom of the Hong Kong citizens. The photo was taken during the interview with Mr Martin Lee in his hotel in central London (Photo taken by Epoch Times Reporter)
On 21st November, the Epoch Times correspondent in London interviewed Mr. Martin Lee in his hotel in central London. Below is the full text of the conversation.
Q: What is the schedule of this trip?
A: Some four weeks ago, I made my first trip to the USA, to Washington DC and New York. I saw senior government officials as well as senior staff of the relevant committees of both Houses of the Congress. A lot of newspapers and magazines, their editorial boards, and so on. On this trip I started my visit to Brussels, where I saw quite a few members of the European Parliament, and also saw the last governor of Hong Kong, Mr. Chris Patten, who is now occupying a very important position in the European Union in charge of foreign affairs. And this time in England, I also saw many members of both houses of parliament, as well as the Foreign secretary, Shadow Foreign secretary, and again the press, a number of newspapers, and student groups. I gave a speech at the London School of Economics the night before last, and tonight I’m going to Oxford on invitation again to speak to the students there. I will go to Geneva tomorrow to talk to the newly-appointed UN Human Rights Commissioner.
Q: what’s the purpose and expectations of this trip?
A: The purpose of this visit is to tell our friends all over the world that the Joint Declaration is not being fulfilled, because the joint declaration was announced in 1984 and at that time, many countries in the world strongly supported it on the basis that Hong Kong people will be able to continue to enjoy all their freedoms as well as the rule of law and way of life, which should all remain unchanged, on China resuming sovereignty over Hong Kong. But recently the Hong Kong government has proposed certain legislative measures which in my view will seriously erode some of our basic freedoms, including the press freedom, religious freedom and freedom of association, etc. It will constitute a breach of the Sino-British Joint Declaration under which all our freedoms are guaranteed.
Q: Why is it necessary to talk about Hong Kong’s internal affairs to the international community?
A: The important thing is, I think it’s important that the Beijing government as well as the Hong Kong government be told very clearly that if they were to legislate in Hong Kong under Article 23 of the Basic Law, and if any of our people’s freedoms be eroded, then that will constitute a breach of the Sino-British Joint Declaration, which promised at the time that all our freedoms will remain intact. Of course, if those promised had not been made to the Hong Kong people in 1984 and early 1985, that all our freedoms will remain intact, I don’t think many or any government would have been keen or happy to support the Sino-British Joint Declaraction. If they had known at the time that five years down the road, some of our key freedoms would indeed be eroded, then I don’t think they would have supported it. I believe those foreign governments that supported the Joint Declaraction at least owe a moral obligation to the people of Hong Kong to speak up to warn the Hong Kong government not to legislate.
Q: What has been the general attitude of the US and UK governments and the European Union on this issue?
A: They all support our view. I’ve got a very warm welcome from many groups, particularly parliamentarians here and members of the European Parliament. I understand there will be resolution proposed in both houses of the US congress, and I know there will be a debate on Hong Kong in the European Parliament on the 18th of December. Here in the UK, the Foreign Office already issued a statement showing that it has been following with concerns the development in Hong Kong over these proposals by the Hong Kong government and obviously they don’t want to see any of our freedoms being brittled down or being adversely affected. Also, there will be a debate in the House of Commons next Tuesday on Hong Kong. So I think the support is tremendous.
Q: The UK and the US are preparing for war against Iraq. There seems to be a reluctance to offend China. Do you that will influence the governments’ attititudes toward the Hong Kong issue?
A: Well the two things are not mutually exclusive. Trying to round up China in support of the possible war against Iraq is one thing, but making sure this international treaty signed between Britain and China be honoured I think is a different matter. And indeed what good is it if China will make new agreements with the free world, for example, when they know that some old agreements will be broken.
Q: What long-term implications will this legislation have for Hong Kong?
A: Under some of the proposals here particularly Chapter 7, if the central government feels that a particular organisation poses a threat to national security, that organisation will be banned in mainland China. And if the central government states the fact on a certificate that a particular organisation has been banned in mainland China, and passes the certificate to the Hong Kong government, the Hong Kong government will also have to ban the similar organisation in Hong Kong if the Hong Kong organisation is a branch of the mainland one. And it constitutes a threat to national security or public order. Public order is very wide and so if any organisation has been convicted of an offence of say obstructing of a public place that could render that organisation to be banned. But the more objectionable thing is that the government, in the proposals, says any certificate from Beijing is binding on Hong Kong. So the question is, what will happen if the central government not only says a particular organisation is banned in Beijing, or banned in Mainland China, because it constitutes a threat to national security, but goes on to say, a Hong Kong organisation is actually a branch of the mainland one, which has been banned, and the Hong Kong one also constitutes a threat to national security. I think if all these things are stated in the certificate, it appears the Hong Kong government can do nothing about it, no body can challenge it. The Hong Kong organisation will automatically be banned. If that is the case it’ll give Beijing unlimited power to ban any organisation whether religious or political, which the Beijing government doesn’t wish to see continue to exist in Hong Kong. I think that is very terrible if such legislation be enacted.
Q: Why is this issue also important to the mainland and Taiwan?
A: By enacting such a law, in my view, it doesn’t help Hong Kong. It’s going to destroy Hong Kong as an international financial centre, as people will be afraid to do business in Hong Kong. And therefore it won’t be any good for China, because China’s international reputation will be damaged, as people will say that China doesn’t honour her obligations in the Joint Declaration and therefore China is unlikely to honour any agreement that she may make in future. As far as Taiwan is concerned, this issue is certainly very important. Because if the Taiwan people see that human rights in Hong Kong are being infringed with impunity five years from China resuming the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong, then how do you expect the Taiwan people to be interested to be reunited with mainland China on the same terms as Hong Kong, which is “one country, two systems”? When they see it’s not working, when they see their freedoms may well have to be sacrificed, particularly now that in Taiwan the president is democratically elected, and Hong Kong chief executive is simply appointed by Beijing, how can they support such reunification? One of China’s top priorities is to reunite with Taiwan. If Taiwan doesn’t want reunification, what good can it have for China? Therefore, if the Hong Kong insist on legislating this way, it’ll be good for Hong Kong, China as well as Taiwan.
Q: Having visited these countries and talked to people in governments and parliaments, are you confident that Hong Kong people will be able to prevent the government from legislating on article 23?
A: I’m not confident. But I believe this is my duty. I’m a democratically elected legislator from Hong Kong and I consider it my role and my duty to do everything within my power both in Hong Kong and outside Hong Kong to try to stop this nonsense because it cannot do anybody any good.
Q: What expectations and suggestions do you have for overseas Chinese people?
A: I think everybody who treasures freedoms should speak up because it cannot be in the interest of any Chinese national wherever he or she lives to see such erosion of human rights in such a free society as Hong Kong.
Translated from http://yuanming.net/articles/200211/14687.html and original interview notes conducted in English
* * *
You are welcome to print and circulate all articles published on Clearharmony and their content, but please quote the source.
more ...