Far East Economic Review: China Moves To Change: Religion Factors In

December 11, 2002

(Clearwisdom.net) Even Hong Kong agrees with that last part. Its consultation document on the proposed laws concedes that the territory "may not be in a position to determine whether an organization poses a threat to national security." Therefore, largely "we should defer to the decision of the central authorities based on the comprehensive information that it possesses."

Hong Kong guarantees freedom of religion and the Falun Gong spiritual movement can operate despite being banned on the mainland. But suppose China banned a religion on national security grounds. In the clash of freedom over national security, probably few would bet on freedom winning the day in Hong Kong.

Since the handover in 1997, time after time Hong Kong's institutions have come under fire from inside Hong Kong or directly from China. Newspapers were warned by China not to report the views of pro-independence politicians in Taiwan; Chinese government organizations were retroactively exempted from a variety of Hong Kong laws in 1998; and most notably, Hong Kong's Court of Final Appeal was overruled by Beijing on an immigration case after it delivered a unanimous decision in 1999 at odds with what the Hong Kong government wanted. Meanwhile, Hong Kong is under less scrutiny by the big Western powers. This may have encouraged the government to press ahead with its plans.

Given the signs since 1997, it is no surprise that the Article 23 laws are potentially harsh. But did Beijing push Hong Kong into acting now? And what interest does China have in eroding Hong Kong's rule of law, given that it is a major business advantage for the territory?

China says little when it comes to its views on Article 23. Perhaps that's because the mainland doesn't have to say much. In marking the fifth anniversary of Hong Kong's handover, President Jiang Zemin on July 1 last year referred to its "fairly sound and complete legal system." Possibly this qualified assessment was taken by local authorities as a signal to start moving on Article 23.

Yet China certainly doesn't want panic. Perhaps more desirable for Beijing, though, is a gentle waning of confidence in Hong Kong's separateness. The British Chamber of Commerce warned in November that the new powers to proscribe organizations already banned on the mainland "appear to give the Chinese authorities a substantial foothold in the criminal law of [Hong Kong]. It is important that the line between Hong Kong and mainland law is not blurred."

Could it be that gradual blurring is exactly the desired effect? The opposition Democratic Party's founding chairman, Martin Lee, says business people from the United States are starting to look at Shanghai as a better place to invest in than Hong Kong. "They accept that Hong Kong is still miles ahead of Shanghai in the rule of law, but they see a trend: China's rule of law is going up, and Hong Kong's is going down," he says.


ONE COUNTRY, ONE SYSTEM?

á-- Proposals to outlaw subversion and sedition amount to mixing the legal
systems in Hong Kong and China

á-- They spark rare criticism from Hong Kong business leaders worried about
curbs on the free flow of information

á-- Lawyers say that the plans are not clear enough to protect basic rights
and freedoms

 Yearly Archive   Printer Version