12/15/2002
South China Morning Post
Page 10
OPPOSITION TO the proposed anti-subversion legislation under Article 23 will reach a climax this
afternoon when thousands of people from different walks of life are expected to join a march to
government headquarters from Victoria Park.
[...]
The majority, however, will probably be ordinary people who want to lead a peaceful life, free from
fear. Many may never have been involved in political activism before, but feel compelled to speak up
before their voices are drowned out by the seemingly orchestrated chorus of support for the
legislation.
About three months after the government released the consultative document for public debate, unease
about the proposed legislation has grown, despite the intensive government campaign to explain the
proposals.
The Hong Kong Transition Project has noted a marked change in public opinion. In its latest survey,
published on Friday, it found the number of people with fears about their personal freedoms had
doubled following the publication of the proposals.
The survey also found more than 54 per cent did not think it was a good time to introduce
legislation. And more than 70 per cent agreed the government should publish a white bill for
consultation.
Similar findings were recorded in a survey conducted earlier by Lingnan University.
There are various reasons for the depth of public anxiety. Some of those come down to residual fears
about the history of communist rule in the mainland, including the use of military force during the
student protests in Tiananmen Square in 1989.
More recently, the suppression of Falun Gong practitioners in the mainland, in contrast to the
official tolerance of the group in the SAR, has become a reminder of the wide gulf between the two
systems.
Proposals such as allowing the SAR government to proscribe on the grounds of national security a
local group with connections to a group banned in the mainland has inevitably sparked fears about a
blurring of the line between the two systems.
Some fears also hinge on how to narrow the scope of subversion-related activities that should be
banned without imposing unnecessary restrictions on freedoms.
But perhaps more importantly, more people are increasingly doubtful about the sincerity of the
government in listening to their views through consultation.
Various remarks made by senior officials and some government supporters have deepened public fears
and mistrust about the legislative exercise.
For instance, the criticism by Secretary for Justice Elsie Leung Oi-sie of Bar Association chairman
Alan Leong Kah-kit, claiming he had made emotive comments, did not help facilitate debate on the
Bar's detailed critique of the consultation document.
It gave the impression Miss Leung was trying to discredit Mr Leong, while not replying to the
association's stance.
Rightly or wrongly, it raised serious doubts about the government's avowed goal of a calm and
educated debate.
Meanwhile, the comments by pro-Beijing unionist legislator Leung Fu-wah, accusing Bishop Joseph Zen
Ze-kiun, the head of the Catholic Church in Hong Kong, of being a "pathological saint" for
opposing the proposals was a blistering personal attack.
Although the criticism was hardly co-ordinated, it underlined a feeling of scepticism about the
motives of the critics. They may now be so wrapped up in their own scepticism that they fail to hear
the voices of the people.
Chris Yeung is the Post's
Editor-at-Large
Clearwisdom Home
To Fellow Practitioners
Yearly Archive
Printer Version