14th January 2003
New Tang Dynasty TV interviewed Dr Steve Ladyman, Member of Parliament in the United Kingdom, on the proposed Article 23 legislation in Hong Kong. Dr Ladyman has been very concerned with the human rights situation in China, and has been vocal in expressing his concerns to the media and in the parliament. Below is the full report.
Q: What do you think of the proposed Article 23 legislation in Hong Kong?
A: I have no objection to laws against treason. Every country has laws against treason. My concern is that the new legislation may be framed so widely that things I don’t regard as treason will be captured by it. Treason is an act against the government; it isn’t a thought or belief against the government. In the UK I’m free to agree or disagree with the government, I’m free to talk to my friends about whether I agree or disagree with the Government, but I’m not free to try and overthrow the Government. And that’s the way a law on treason should be framed. Because we haven’t seen the details of the new legislation yet because the consultation has been held in a vacuum, I’m very concerned about the way it will be framed and what will be capture by it.
Q: What indications might the proposed law have for the future of Hong Kong?
A: One of the reasons why Hong Kong has been such a success economically is because it has been a free society where people have been free to use their imaginations and free to follow their dreams. If you start to restrict that freedom then ultimately you will start to restrict the success of Hong Kong and its economic prosperity will start to diminish. And that will damage not just Hong Kong but of course it will ultimately damage the People’s Republic because the People’s Republic is going to rely on Hong Kong for a lot of its trading with the Western world.
Q: What responsibilities do the British Government have in this matter?
A: Because of our long-term relationship with Hong Kong, because it was us that negotiated the end of the treaty where Hong Kong was a British protectorate, we have great responsibility and, of course, many of the people in Hong Kong look to us for protection. So if they feel threatened by the proposed changes in legislation, it’s to the British Government they look for someone who will be an advocate on their behalf and that’s very much my position. I just believe that we need to be aware of this possibility and we need to make sure that when the new legislation is framed, it genuinely deals with real treason and not with a wider concept of treason, which I would regard as a restriction of human rights.
Q: On December 10th, the Chinese Vice Premier Qian Qichen said in Beijing that the proposed legislation on Article 23 in Hong Kong has nothing to do with the UK or USA. Do you have any comments on that?
A: He’s wrong. Human Rights are to do with all of us wherever we are in the world. And, let me be absolutely frank, I want the People’s Republic and the United Kingdom to be great friends; I want the People’s Republic and the United Kingdom to trade freely. I believe that growth of the economy in the People’s Republic can bring prosperity to my country and my constituents as well as to the people in the People’s Republic. But that growth can only come about in an environment where human rights are respected. So I want to see the People’s Republic moving towards what I regard as a more liberal regime, and actually I believe that the new Leadership in the People’s Republic has a great potential to be a great reforming Government and to lead the People’s Republic in that direction. So with me speaking out is with no disrespect to the People’s Republic. It is an act of friendship that I want to identify the way I believe the People’s Republic needs to move so that we can have the friendship between our two countries that I believe is vital for us.
Q: What has been the response in the British Parliament to this legislation?
A: Well at the moment the Government is saying that, because it hasn’t seen the detail of the new legislation, because it hasn’t been published yet, it’s not willing to criticise what it hasn’t seen. But it’s making clear that it wants to encourage the Hong Kong authorities to publish the new legislation as quickly as possible and it wants it framed in such a way as to respect human rights. I have to say I am very critical of the fact that the legislation has not been published whilst the consultation has been going on. I don’t see how you can have a consultation about legislation that you haven’t seen yet, and I think that, if the Hong Kong authorities drafted the legislation and then held the consultation, we might not be having this dispute now, because it would be clear that the legislation was tightly framed and was going to be helpful rather than dangerous. Because they haven’t released the legislation we don’t know what’s going to be in it, so the people are very much keeping their powder dry at the moment until they’ve seen the legislation. I’m speaking out now because I want to make sure that the legislation is framed in the way I believe will be helpful.
Q: Article 23 legislation has caused such a dispute today. If it was anti-human rights from the very beginning, then why did the British Government allow it to become part of the basic law?
A: Well it isn’t necessarily anti-human rights. It is absolutely reasonable for every country to have a law about treason. But I believe treason is an overt act, something that you do, not something that you think. You must always be free to talk to people about your beliefs, to associate with people that share your beliefs, and to try and convince other people that you are right. That is perfectly reasonable and something that everybody everywhere in the world should be allowed to do. If you take that further and commit an act of treachery, then it’s entirely reasonable that you have laws against that. So whether Article 23 turns out to be anti-human rights or not depends upon the way the legislation is framed and it’s the legislation we haven’t seen yet so that’s my concern. It could potentially, almost be a storm in the teacup that we may have nothing to argue about, but we won’t know until we’ve seen the detail of the regulations.
Q: What consequences do you think this legislation might have on the United Kingdom? Is it just a moral responsibility for the UK or does it have more profound implications?
A: Well, first of all, there is the moral imperative. Secondly, as I said earlier, there is the economic imperative because we want to trade freely with Hong Kong and with the People’s Republic and if we don’t believe that human rights are being respected we won’t be able to trade freely. Thirdly, many people from Hong Kong now live here in the United Kingdom and people from Mainland China have also come here to live in the United Kingdom and they have family at home and their family will be threatened if the legislation is dangerous. So, many people who have a Chinese background who live here will worry about what the effect will be on their family at home.
Q: This issue doesn’t seem to have attracted very much attention from the British Press. So do you think that the British public in general still care about Hong Kong?
A: I certainly think they do still care about Hong Kong. This particular issue hasn’t got the profile I would like it to have got. I think that probably because it’s quite a technical argument at the moment and it’s quite complex and the media quite often likes to deal with things that seem like they’re black and white. I think when the legislation is published, if it is dangerous, if it is too widely framed, as I fear it might be, then I think it will become very much more of an issue in the United Kingdom. Also, let’s not forget we’re in the lead up to the Olympic Games on the Mainland, and the British love their sports and they aren’t going to be able to enjoy looking forward to the Olympic Games if they don’t see the Peoples Republic as being a liberal regime that respects human rights, so there will be that issue as well over the coming years, which will ramp up the interest in the UK. But people in the UK certainly still do care about Hong Kong.
Q: How do you evaluate the Human Rights situation in China?
A: Well it’s difficult at the moment, and I have considerable concerns about the way people like Falun Gong and some Christian communities are being treated. I believe that you need to have a plurality of both religious and political beliefs within a country. And the range of beliefs is not being respected at the moment. But I have high hopes for the new leadership and I do believe the new leadership do want to be reformists and I hope that they’ll move to improve human rights in China over the coming years. So I’m not going to be rude or disrespectful to this Government and the People’s Republic of China, because I want them to engage in a discussion about how human rights should improve in the People’s Republic and work together with my Government and with other Western governments to improve our relationship.
Q: Have they been listening to western governments in regard to human rights issues?
A: Not so far. But, if people aren’t listening, all one can do is talk a little louder and more clearly. And, hopefully, when they see this broadcast, they’ll start thinking about these issues again. And as I say, we do have two things that the People’s Republic desperately want: One is to hold successful Olympic Games, and secondly to approve their trading position with the West. Those two things are going to be entirely dependent on them improving their human rights record. So I’m hoping that the new leadership don’t perhaps have the same baggage as the previous leadership, and we’ll take that on board and move things forward over the coming years.
Q: Do you think the British Government and other Western Governments have paid enough attention to human rights issues in China?
A: I don’t think they’ve been clear enough about their position quite often. I think sometimes they’ve allowed desire to trade get in the way of speaking out on the moral issues involved and I think we should be clearer about what we believe and it’s definitely possible to be clear about what we believe whilst still being a friend to China. Friends are sometimes frank with each other, sometimes tell each other where we’re making mistakes. So I think that the British Government, which is the only one I can try and influence, should be clearer about what we want in the future if we’re going to have this friendly relationship and trading relationship that we definitely want with Mainland China.
Q: You have been involved in some activities in regard to human rights in China. Could you tell us more about that?
A: Well my activities are restricted to speaking out in Parliament and making my views clear in the media. I don’t get involved in demonstrations or any of these direct activities because I don’t believe that it’s necessary to do that. I believe we can deal with the problem by talking. We can deal with it in Hong Kong by people making their views clear during this consultation, by making sure that, when the legislation is finally tabled, we’re all very clear about what we believe are the good parts and bad parts of it, and getting that fixed. And we can deal with this problem by talking parliament to parliament and Government to Government with the People’s Republic of China.
Q: What has been driving you to do all this for human rights of China?
A: The moral dimension. People of Chinese background who have family back in China and in Hong Kong who have come to tell me of their fears and my belief that if we are going to have the sort of world peace that we all desperately want in this 21st Century, it’s only going to be if we can engage with China and involve China more closely in our deliberations and in our thoughts. We can’t have a stable and growing economy and we can’t have a stable and improving peace in this world without China and we can only have that engagement with China by talking so that’s what’s driving me.
Thank you very much, Dr Ladyman.
* * *
You are welcome to print and circulate all articles published on Clearharmony and their content, but please quote the source.
more ...