July 3 2003

The Hong Kong Government should rethink proposed harsh new security laws.

As the Union Jack was lowered for the last time in Hong Kong, the British governor, Chris Patten, declared: "Now Hong Kong people are to run Hong Kong. That is the promise. And that is the unshakeable destiny." Beijing was never going to let that happen fully on the issues that mattered - security, sovereignty and political freedom. In his speech on that wet night six years ago, then Chinese president Jiang Zemin spoke of the colony's "return to the motherland" while making soothing noises about China's commitment to the principle of "one country, two systems".

Hong Kong has since taken a battering on several fronts. It was hit hard by the Asian economic crisis that set in within weeks of the handover. Rising unemployment, business collapses, a decline in tourism and, most recently, the SARS epidemic have added to its woes. On top of this, Hong Kong's administration has moved to introduce anti-subversion laws that could be used to stifle criticism of both the local and mainland rulers.

The anti-subversion laws, grouped under what is known as Article 23, would form part of Hong Kong's Basic Law, the "mini-constitution" that governs the territory under the "one country, two systems" regime.

The law is currently before a local legislature stacked with pro-Government and pro-Beijing members. Article 23 covers such activities as treason, subversion and secession, sedition, theft of state secrets and prohibitions on organisations with foreign links from conducting political activities in Hong Kong. Critically, it would mean that organisations banned in mainland China could not operate lawfully in Hong Kong. This would include groups such as Falun Gong and could potentially be extended to include churches, human rights groups, trade unions and even opposition political parties. Opponents say there is a direct threat to political, religious and media freedoms.

The Hong Kong Government contends that Britain, Canada and the United States already have legislation similar to Article 23. But it fails to point out that these countries also function under a rule of law not apparent in China, where what constitutes a state secret, for example, is a rubbery concept.

The US, Britain and the European Union have all criticised the proposed law. The Hong Kong Government has also been taken aback by the level of public opposition. On Tuesday up to 500,000 black-clad citizens - from a population of just 6.8 million - peacefully took to the streets in the largest protest in China since the 1989 pro-democracy demonstrations.

The catalyst for the protest was Article 23, but demonstrators also vented frustrations over the administration's handling of the economy and the SARS crisis. Hong Kong's Government should rethink its anti-subversion laws, but, under pressure from its mainland puppeteers, probably will not.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/02/1056825454606.html