|
|
| Home |
| What is Article 23? |
| Media Reports |
| World Support |
| How can you help? |
| Contact |
|
Useful
links |
| article23.org English |
 |
|
Update:
HK Shelves Security Bill
The Hong Kong government has withdrawn a controversial anti-subversion bill that sparked the territory's biggest political crisis in recent years. Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa said the government would not introduce a new version of the legislation until more public consultations had been held.
He said the government had no timetable for introducing the new version, nor did he spell out which aspects of the old bill would be reviewed.
Mr Tung's decision, which is certain to have been approved by his backers in Beijing, follows a split in his governing coalition which would have made it impossible to pass the bill as it stood.
Support for the bill among Hong Kong politicians was seriously eroded in July when around 500,000 people took to the streets, in protests which also alarmed China's leaders.
Hong Kong is required to outlaw sedition, treason and subversion under the mini-constitution negotiated for the territory when China resumed sovereignty over the former British colony in 1997.
But critics of the bill said it would erode political and religious freedom.
--Exerpt from BBC News
|
What is Aritcle 23, Anti-subversion Law in Hong Kong? " Hong Kong is required under its Basic Law to enact "Article-23" legislation. However, the current proposal is far more draconian than stipulated by Article 23 of the Basic Law. The controversial clause 7.15, for example, was not required by the latter. An updated collection of responses from legal experts and respected democratic politicians etc. on this issue below. " The Legislative Council (LegCo) will discuss the draft legislation but this is hardly a safeguard for Hong Kong's autonomy and liberties because two-thirds of the LegCo members or legislators are appointed by Beijing with only one-third elected directly. The LegCo is expected by Beijing to rubber stamp anything it demands. Further more the HK authority has refused to publish a white paper of the exact wording of the draft legislation for public consultation. " Although any decision to proscribe an organisation based on the subversion law would be subjected to appeal in the court/judicial review, the law is so draconian and tilted towards Beijing, the possibility of reversing a government decision in the court is slim. Alan Leong, chairman of the HK Bar Association, said (Reuters 11/10/02) that no one would escape if they were targeted. Audrey Eu, a former chairwoman of the Bar Association and currently a legislator, said (FT 25/11/02) "If the central government says that the Falun Gong is a threat to national security, there's very little Hong Kong courts can do". The politically motivated and highly controversial trial and subsequent conviction of 16 Falun Gong practitioners for pavement obstruction during a peaceful appeal in front of the Chinese liaison office also illustrates the dangerous susceptibility of Hong Kong courts to intense political pressure. " Falun Gong has not been banned in China for endangering national security, which is one the prerequisites for a proscription decision. However, the totalitarian regime in China would not hesitate to do so if required. So far, it has already put many different labels on Falun Gong. The regime first banned Falun gong as an "illegal organisation", then labelled it as an "evil cult" at a press conference given by Jiang Zemin in France, before other labels such as "reactionary organisation" and "terrorist organisation" were brought in at various stages depending on the general climate and Party needs. It is worth noting that a US resident and FG practitioner Ms Teng Chunyan was charged for "stealing state secrets" and sentenced to 3 years in jail after she investigated the abuse of practitioners in psychiatric hospitals. China has rarely used the national security risk label not because of its inability to do so but because the communist regime is culturally more at home with labels such as anti-revolutionary or reactionary organisations. It has shown a keen desire, however, to use more modern labels such as "terrorist organisation" when they serve its purpose. " The HK government must be satisfied that an organisation is a national security risk before banning it. However, this is hardly a safeguard for a fair and just decision because all Hong Kong ministers are appointed either directly by Beijing (Tung) or appointed by Beijing via Tung. Their independence from Beijing is doubtful. Two illustrations of this are the deportation of 100+ overseas practitioners in May 2001 and July 2002 when the Chinese dictator Jiang Zemin was visiting Hong Kong, and the trial, under Chinese pressure, of 16 Falun Gong practitioners for peacefully appealing in front of the Chinese liaison office. It is worth noting that the reason given for the deportations was that they presented a security risk. " Another precondition for proscribing an organisation - affiliation between HK and mainland organisations - is even less a safeguard. Actually it is a fundamental human right of a HK Catholic to be in touch with fellow Catholics in China, and the same is true for Falun Gong practitioners! " The HK authority said before that they were not targeting Falun Gong, e.g., when they deported practitioners in May 2001. However, virtually all of the people deported were FG practitioners and the authority later admitted that they operated according to a "blacklist" of Falun Gong practitioners. The proposed proscription mechanism is wrong in principle. The "safeguards" proclaimed by the HK authority are not only unworkable but also represent a mistaken approach. The correct approach is to construct the law on the right principles of autonomy and liberty for HK. The proposed legislation, brought in under direct pressure from
China, represents a thinly veiled attempt by a totalitarian system
to batter a western-based legal system, and the liberties and
rule of law associated with it. These are fundamental values of
the West which underline our freedom, safety, security and well-being.
Such attacks are just as damaging if not more so than terrorist
attacks and could impose a more fundamental threat to humanity
and so deserves the strongest resolve of the UK to ensure its
defeat.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
How can
you help? You could also send submission to the Security Bureau by the following means on or before 24 December 2002: By post: By Fax: (852) 2521-2848 By e-mail: BL23@sb.gov.hk 7 leaflets in both English and Chinese compiled by a number of
famous Though the consultation document contains voluminous legal concepts
and is not easy to understand, you should not be hold back. You
could have a say on whether it should legislate or not, or express
your worry on the narrowing down of basic freedoms and human rights.
Government officials tried to play down the issue by saying that
fellow citizens were not interested at all, and that taxi drivers,
restaurant and fast-food shop waiters would not have expertise
to understand the bill. In truth, they are not willing to see
strong public opposition. If an overwhelming majority were against
to legislate, the Government would seriously consider the negative
impact of such legislation to the society and to its popularity.
It might have to narrow down original proposal and provide more
human rights protection, or at best to withdraw the whole proposal.
Every submission counts, please do send submission and fight for
an open and free society.
|
