Talon News

July 2, 2003

HONG KONG (Talon News) -- 500,000 protesters swarmed into Hong Kong's streets and made their way to the city's central government buildings in protest over a new law that would seriously curtail their freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and association.

The protest is the largest since China's crackdown on pro-democracy protesters in Beijing's Tiananmen Square in 1989. It lasted for about 6 hours, was 5 times bigger than organizers had expected, and forced Hong Kong's Chief Executive Tung Chee Hwa to hide in his central office.

The passage of the bill, known as the National Security (Legislative Provisions) Bill, is analogous to the elimination of the First and Fourth amendments from the U.S. Constitution.

Article 23 of Hong Kong's Basic Law, used by politicians to justify the current bill, requires the Special Administrative Region to "enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People's Government, or theft of state secrets, to prohibit foreign political organizations or bodies from conducting political activities in the Region, and to prohibit political organizations or bodies of the Region from establishing ties with foreign political organizations or bodies."

The current bill does not explicitly allow Hong Kong to ban political, religious, or social groups based on their message or stance. A closer look at the bill's provisions, however, reveals a loophole through which mainland China's strict censorship could enter Hong Kong.

The bill provides for the punishment of life imprisonment for any person whom the government determines to have attempted by "war, force or serious criminal means" to subvert, split, intimidate or harm the Chinese government. Mainland China has already classified nearly every large group as seditious, including Christian and Falun Gong groups, to say nothing of independent media and political groups, which are essentially nonexistent. If these standards were applied in Hong Kong, which is under Chinese control, the government could eliminate any group or publication at will.

The bill also allows the police to conduct searches of private areas and seizures of private property whenever they have a "reasonable belief" that the persons connected with such areas or property are attempting treason, secession, subversion, or sedition. Warrants are not required. The only restriction is that a police officer must be in pursuit of "evidence" that would be more difficult to find with the passage of time. This requirement can be stretched very easily.

Police are allowed to conduct searches of individual persons without a warrant, the only restriction being that the police officer must be of the same gender as the person he is searching. Police can occupy "searched" private property indefinitely.

Great Britain has expressed a number of concerns with the bill, which it says violates the Sino-British Joint Declaration reached between Britain and China when Britain handed over Hong Kong, then a colony, to the Chinese government. The declaration provides for a "One Country, Two Systems" policy under which dissent and political free speech are supposed to be permitted.

British Foreign Office Minister Bill Rammell commented that the proposed new provisions on proscription "blur the dividing line between the two autonomous legal systems by introducing into Hong Kong legislation linkages to mainland law."

"We share the view of many in Hong Kong that this is inconsistent with the 'One Country, Two Systems' principle, which underlies the Joint Declaration," Rammell added.

[...]

Tung issued a statement Tuesday expressing concern that the protests were so large and claiming that Hong Kong's government shares the views of the protesters with respect to basic rights and freedoms.

"We shall continue to take active steps to maintain and safeguard rights and freedoms and develop democracy in a gradual and orderly manner according to the blueprint laid down in the Basic Law," Tung was quoted by China's official internet "information center."

Tung called on Hong Kong residents to exhibit the "spirit of solidarity" they showed in the face of the SARS epidemic, expressed sympathy for the hardships undergone by Hong Kong residents during the region's economic restructuring following its transfer from Great Britain to China, and pledged that the government would listen "more extensively" to its citizens' concerns in the future.

Tung also attempted to justify the bill with vague references to the importance of economic recovery and national security.

Amnesty International Hong Kong has also attacked the bill. Amnesty believes that the bill goes farther than Article 23 requires, and tightens restrictions that are already too strict. Furthermore, Amnesty claims that the bill's "expansive" language could be used to curtail fundamental freedoms.

Amnesty and a group called Civil Human Rights Front participated in the rally, and actively solicited others to do so. Amnesty remains dissatisfied with the entire consultation process.

China's propaganda agency saw fit to respond to Amnesty's concerns directly. It claimed that the volume of opinions on the bill offered during the consultation process within the Legislative Council Bills Committee proves that the bill was not "being rushed through," and noted that the bill does provide for jury trials in every instance.

The Legislative Council has attempted to put a positive spin on the law in recent days, responding to the nature of the protesters' concerns without addressing their substance. Current rhetoric suggests that the bill only promotes national security as much as is necessary.

"We believe the bill and the amendments have struck a balance between the need to protect national security and the need to safeguard human rights," a Hong Kong spokesman said on Tuesday after a series of draft amendments to the bill were introduced.

The U.S. has also reacted in protest. The House of Representatives passed last Thursday a resolution calling on China and Hong Kong to avoid enacting the new law, to elect via universal suffrage the region's Legislative Council, and to give this council the power to reform Hong Kong's laws.

The bipartisan bill was passed 426-1.

The Hong Kong bill in question was published on the February 14th and is expected to be passed on July 9th. Given the forces at work it is unlikely that the protests will halt the bill's passage, and Britain and Amnesty International consider it a foregone conclusion.

http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/newswire/nw03/talonnews/0703/newswire-tn -070203a.htm