Sunday, November 24, 2002

Beijing -- For a few weeks now heated debates have raged in Hong Kong. Finally, said several observers whose formerly pulsing city had appeared resigned lately. Now, however, Hong Kong has been positioned at a cross roads in her juvenile existence as part of China. Hong Kong's government took five years since the takeover in 1997 to give credence to apprehension on the part of citizens' rights, a time line the people had feared. Now the time is here: Hong Kong will get an anti-subversion law. "The last nail in the casket to bury political freedoms," as Martin Lee calls it. He is chairman of the Democratic Party. "Nonsense," the ruling factions are crying back -- "almost nothing will change."

Really? Even celebrations of joyous occasions have become rare and are not free of gloom. Conservative Heritage Foundation/Hong Kong last week, commenting on the "freest market place in the world," had declared, for the ninth time, "if this new law encumbers the free dissemination of information, the city can kiss her status as Top Spot good-bye." One could say in defense of Tung Chee-hwa, that China-appointed leader of Hong Kong, that his government mandates him to bring about such a law, because the ratification of Kong Kong's Basic Law, agreed upon between London and Beijing dictates it such. Article 23 regulations demand that transgressions such as "high treason, secession, inciting to riot and subversion" against Beijing will be punished in the same manner as "stealing of state secrets." This law would furthermore forbid Hong Kong citizens any "connection to foreign political organizations." But this basic law also states that "Hong Kong must decree any such laws to her own discretions."

Laws against high treason and subversion are not the order of the day in democratic nations. Hong Kong could have opted to bring about a law package that would both satisfy the demands of Article 23 and at the same time leave most citizens' rights largely unaffected. Tung's government, though, proceeds at a pace and in a manner that only fuels a sense of alarm, foreboding and mistrust. Last September, his government introduced a draft of this law, "for discussion," that did not specify the exact measures to be taken against future lawbreakers. At the same time, government officials admitted to have consulted in this matter with Beijing, to ascertain they follow established policies. Beijing had exerted pressure for a long time already.

Critics fear that Hong Kong will ramrod through a law that will make it possible to suppress Falun Gong as well as muzzle the press. People such as Frank Lu are considered endangered. He is the one who informs the rest of the world about workers' unrest and human rights abuses in China.

In China, journalists ended up in jail for publishing such inane "state secrets" as unpublished economic data. In the future, it might be possible that in Hong Kong one could be accused of a crime merely for possessing unauthorized state secrets." Questions tumble on top of questions: Will it be a crime of inciting to riot to publicly declare sympathy for Taiwan? Thus questioned, government representative reply with evasive answers.

The Heart of Success

In the incoming February, this law will be presented to members of the parliament and summer is planned as the time for ratification. Only a small number of Hong Kong's parliamentary members are elected officials. The majority of them are appointed Beijing sympathizers, from the business sector and lobbying circles. They will ratify anything the government presents them with. "This is what Tung envisions as the law's ruling mandate," said Law Yuk-kai, chairperson for Human Rights Monitor, Hong Kong's largest human rights organization. " He [Tung] is thinking up a law and then ramrods it through."

At risk here are Hong Kong's reputation and future. Anson Chan pointed that out; until her resignation 1-1/2 years ago she was Number Two, behind Tung, and vastly more popular than the government chief. She had written that a free society, an independent and respected justice system, so she wrote further, are "at the heart of Hong Kong's prior and future success." She had appealed to Tung to be as "transparent and responsible as possible" with the formulation of Article 23. "I can think of no other laws that would have such incisive consequences, not only for our freedom, rights and our lifestyle, but also for our survival as a huge financial and service sector centrum."

The critics so far have not met with much encouragement. China's Vice-Premier Qian Qichen countered the critics with her remark: "You all harbor the devil in your hearts." In Chinese that translates "you all have ulterior motives." The biggest blunder yet is attributable to Regina Ip, Hong Kong's Security Secretary. Students asked her why she is lobbying so furiously for Article 23, when there are other articles of note in the Basic Law, such as Article 68, which promises Hong Kong no less than "eligibility for all to vote," meaning democracy. Regina Ip countered by saying, "Democracy is not the latest word of wisdom; Adolf Hitler was elected democratically and he murdered millions of Jews."

Justice Secretary Elsie Leung also spoke her curious comprehension of democracy. She accused democrat Martin Lee in his absence, at that time on a consultation trip to Europe, of inviting people from abroad to interfere in Hong Kong matters. "It is precisely this interference from abroad that would benefit Hong Kong now," says human rights advocate Law Yuk-kai. "China listens to the international community's opinions. Those people who would like to see a change in China ought to better redirect their energies and help to ensure a free Hong Kong. That would be a better contribution for a better China."

(Original text in German)