The Guardian: Inside Asia - Alarm in Hong Kong as Beijing pushes for new 'anti-subversion' law.

02/20/2003

(Clearwisdom.net) When most of East Asia - except for North Korea - is barely noticed by a world whose eyes are focused on a nearer east, it is hardly surprising that Hong Kong's continuing troubles hardly get a mention elsewhere. The spotlight had been switched off soon after the 1997 handover, even in Britain, which as the former colonial ruler had pledged never to forget.

Hong Kong has not suffered a dramatic decline of the type predicted in doomsday forecasts at the time of the handover: it has not "gone down the tube". Yet it has been going downhill, and the controversy over a proposed new anti-subversion law is giving it an extra shove.

The intricacies of this highly unpopular law, which has now been tabled before the Legislative Council (LegCo), requires a good deal of explanation.

[...]

While the government prefers the word "security", the term "anti-subversion law" used by its critics is closer to the truth. The need for it stems from the requirement in Article 23 of China's Basic Law (which governs Hong Kong's affairs) that the Hong Kong government should enact laws to "prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against [Beijing], or theft of state secrets", and to prevent foreign political organizations from operating or wielding influence in the territory.

It is generally accepted that Beijing's insistence on this article reflects a deep memory of the way that millions of Hong Kongers mobilized in 1989 to protest at the suppression of the students in Tiananmen Square.

After Tung was "re-elected" last year, Chinese leaders made it clear that he was expected to implement Article 23 without further delay. For reasons that have never been properly explained, his government decided not to publish a draft bill for public discussion, but to issue a set of "proposals" last September that did not offer a text.

Most probably it did not wish to lose face if it were forced to retract wording that had already been tabled; nor would Beijing understand if it were obliged to do so.

The effect has been to revive fears about Chinese interference with Hong Kong freedoms, which had been largely allayed in the past five years.

Less than 20% of those polled by the authoritative Hong Kong Transition Project believe that it is the right time to legislate on Article 23.

[...]

The draft bill has finally been tabled, but as a "blue paper" that will be debated in the mostly undemocratic LegCo where Tung has a built-in majority. The irony is that, even without an earlier draft text, public opinion has forced his secretary for security, Regina Ip, to make more concessions than many critics had expected.

Yet she and the government get little credit for this because of their evident reluctance and lack of transparency. As former independent legislative councillor Christine Loh comments: "The official bungling just prior to publication was nothing short of breathtaking."

The government was shaken by a storm of criticism that came not only from the pro-democracy forces but from the normally complaisant business community, including foreign banks and chambers of commerce.

Several of the concessions that have been made - such as guaranteeing the free flow of financial information and exempting foreigners from the offence of treason - appear designed to appease these critics.

However, while the definitions of treason, subversion, theft of state secrets, etc, have been tightened, they still contain worrying provisions. In particular a new ban on organizations that "endanger national security" could easily be extended to the Falun Gong or any other body linked to a proscribed group on the mainland. And the government has the right to hear any appeal against such a ban behind closed doors.

Critics of the draft bill also say that some assurances previously given by Ip - such as on maintaining freedom of speech and the right of demonstration á- are not reflected in the actual wording.

Beyond worries about the detail, there is a more general perception that the government (as the South China Morning Post said) "is going to bulldoze the laws through LegCo in accordance with a predetermined timetable".

The damaging suspicion is that all this is being done for the benefit of the leaders in Beijing, not for the people of Hong Kong.