No news is not necessarily good news for Hong Kong. Before its reunification with mainland China, many people expected the former British colony to grab headlines as Beijing progressively stripped its freedoms. Instead, Hong Kong mostly vanished from the world’s news radar after 1997. Five years since its handover, and contrary to expectation, Hong Kong retains its rights.
But this could be changing. CH Tung, Hong Kong’s Chief Executive, began his second term last year by proposing new security laws, causing a few news blips of worry. The legislation is meant to comply with Article 23 of the Basic Law, the mini-constitution that governs Hong Kong and that requires the government to enact laws against treason, sedition, subversion, and theft of national secrets.
Article 23 has been a sensitive issue from the moment Hong Kong was returned to China, because its inclusion in the Basic Law came in the wake of the Hong Kong population’s strong support for the 1989 pro-democracy movement in Beijing. To maintain political stability, both the Chinese and Hong Kong governments willingly shelved the issue during Tung’s first term. With his re-election, they abruptly decided that they had waited long enough and would enact the Article 23 security laws before mid-2003.
Vague in wording and unnecessarily broad in scope, the new laws sparked widespread fear that Article 23 will lead to curtailment of basic rights. Lawyers warn of a threat to individual liberty and due process. Journalists argue that defending the public’s interest sometimes requires reporting state secrets. Teachers worry that banning possession of seditious materials will undermine academic freedom. Religious and socio-political associations fear that their global ties will be severed and their existence threatened if their counterparts abroad are declared subversive in mainland China.
Hong Kong’s people do not reject all security legislation. They only demand that the proposed laws be less arbitrary and that their scope be minimised. But government officials merely reiterate the political righteousness of the proposed anti-subversion laws. In one of the more desperate and egregious examples, Regina Ip, the Secretary for Security, attributed Hitler’s rise to power to flaws in the workings of democracy. The government, she hints, will correct similar flaws.
Heated exchanges between the authorities and opponents of the laws led many to believe that the devil is, indeed, in the details. What has emerged is an almost unanimous demand that the Tung government publish a detailed draft of the laws for one more round of consultation. The government, under intense pressure from Beijing to enact the blessed version, calls this unnecessary.
Blocked in their efforts to change the law through consultation, Hong Kong’s people have taken to the streets. At one demonstration, 60,000 participants marched against Article 23 — the largest protests in Hong Kong since the 1989 pro-democracy demonstrations. A counter-demonstration mobilised by pro-China forces drew a smaller crowd. The government claims extensive support, but opinion polls consistently show that an overwhelming majority of Hong Kong’s people oppose the legislation.
The three-month consultation period before any piece of legislation enters into force ended in December. Will the Tung government consider opposing views in redrafting the Article 23 laws? Given the undemocratic nature of the Legislative Council, it is almost certain that the government has enough votes to pass almost any law it wants. But the seriousness of the current situation extends beyond particular laws, no matter how noxious they may be. Slighting public opinion in so direct a way will have more far-reaching implications for Hong Kong’s future.
First, Tung’s repeated policy failures over the last five years caused public confidence in his administration to evaporate. Ignoring public opinion concerning an issue as critical as the security laws will only alienate the middle class further and deepen a festering crisis of legitimacy.
Second, Hong Kong has an international image to maintain, and in international politics what is perceived is often as important as what really happens. The bottom line is that Hong Kong’s image as an open society has been tarnished, with criticism coming from international rights organizations, academics, and the global media. This damage will become permanent if those who oppose the security laws go completely unheeded.
Finally, Hong Kong represents a test of the “one country, two systems” model proclaimed in 1997, and thus of the feasibility of China applying the same scheme to its reunification plans for Taiwan. The prevailing attitude in Taiwan towards reunification is highly sceptical; enactment of strict security laws in Hong Kong will hardly be seen as reassuring.
Hong Kong’s people have spoken. They are waiting to be heard. A short-sighted decision on the part of the Tung government will have serious negative repercussions not only in Hong Kong, but for Taiwan and around the world. Any ruler in his right mind should be concerned whether making such a move will not ultimately harm rather than advance his interests. —DT-PS
Joseph Man Chan is a Professor of communication, Chinese University of Hong Kong
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_19-1-2003_pg3_4
* * *
You are welcome to print and circulate all articles published on Clearharmony and their content, but please quote the source.
more ...