Knight Ridder Newspapers: Hong Kong frets new China-based laws may curb freedom of press, religion, speech
BY MICHAEL DORGAN
(Clearwisdom.net) Hong Kong- When the five-year anniversary of Hong
Kong's return to China passed earlier this year, most observers gave Beijing
passing grades for honoring its pledge to not meddle in the former British
colony's internal affairs. Some local and foreign critics grumbled about a subtle erosion of freedoms in
the freewheeling capitalist enclave of 7 million people, but even they conceded
that China had not intruded with a heavy hand. Now many fear that a change for the worse may be coming. Hong Kong's
Beijing-appointed chief executive is pushing for passage of anti-subversion
legislation that has provoked widespread worries that long-held rights and
freedoms will be undermined by Beijing's determination to silence its critics,
including pro-democracy advocates and followers of the Falun Gong spiritual
[group]. Critics of the legislation say it will put at risk any person or organization
that offends the Chinese government in Beijing, and it will muzzle the Hong Kong
press. "What they propose threatens many of our fundamental freedoms,"
said Margaret Ng, a member of the Legislative Council who represents Hong Kong's
6,000 attorneys under Hong Kong's legislative system, in which some
constituencies are professional groups. The legislation, which Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa says is required under
Article 23 of the Basic Law governing Hong Kong's relations with the mainland,
prohibits treason, secession, sedition and subversion against China's central
government. It also addresses the theft of state secrets and the political
activities of foreign organizations in Hong Kong. Ng condemns the measure as "draconian," and says it will "hit
very directly at the freedom of political dissent, especially when dissent
affects the central government in Beijing." [...] "People are less afraid of laws that have not been used in 100
years," said Ng, herself a lawyer. "But if there are new laws that are
draconian, your worry is more reasonable because they are meant to be
applicable. That's why these strike fear into the hearts of people in Hong
Kong." Tens of thousands of attorneys, church members, journalists, students,
teachers and others last week protested against the proposed legislation in what
supporters say was the biggest street demonstration in Hong Kong since British
rule ended. On Sunday, thousands of government supporters responded with a
counter-demonstration and said the legislation was crucial for China's national
security. In September the government released a 62-page document outlining its
proposals, but the draft legislation will not be ready before February. The
government hopes for passage by July, a near certainly given its control over
the largely undemocratic legislature. Critics complain that the public
consultation period, which ended Tuesday, was insufficient because it concluded
before the full details of the legislation were known. Amnesty International, the Asian Human Rights Commission, Human Rights in
China and the Committee to Protect Journalists have condemned Article 23. David Li Kwok-po, the legislator for the banking sector, said at a recent
American Chamber of Commerce meeting that more than 10 foreign banks from the
United States, Britain, Germany, France and elsewhere had raised concerns that
the proposed laws could choke the free flow of information crucial to Hong
Kong's standing as a major financial center. Cliff Bale, political editor of the publicly owned Radio Television Hong Kong
and a spokesman for the Hong Kong Journalists Association, said sedition is so
broadly defined it would seem to include publication or broadcast of almost
anything objectionable to Beijing, including advocacy of independence for Taiwan
or Tibet. Sedition, according to the proposal released by the government in September,
would include anything intending to "bring into hatred or contempt or to
excite disaffection against the CPG (Central People's Government) or other
competent authorities of the PRC (People's Republic of China) or the HKSARG
(Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government)." That and other provisions, Bale and other critics said, create a repressive
link between the laws of Hong Kong and those of the mainland that could make
almost any criticism of China's Communist Party dictatorship off limits. Bale
noted that reporters on the mainland have been jailed for disclosing seemingly
innocuous economic data. Another provision of Article 23 would allow Hong Kong's government to ban any
organization affiliated with one proscribed by the mainland authorities on
national security grounds, even without an independent determination that the
group poses a security threat. Roman Catholic Bishop Joseph Zen, local leaders of the Falun Gong spiritual
[group] and others fear the rights of religious groups could be harmed. China's
central government has banned Falun Gong as well as Roman Catholic groups that
refuse to renounce loyalty to the pope. Neither Falun Gong nor the underground
Catholic Church has yet been declared a national security threat, but Article
23's critics say they could be in the future. Surveys conducted by the Hong Kong Transition Project in August and November
recorded a spike in public worry about personal freedom. In August, 68 percent
of those polled said they were not concerned about personal freedom. In
November, after the Article 23 proposals were released, 58 percent said they
were not concerned. The percentage of respondents who said they were "very
worried" about Hong Kong's political stability increased from 10 percent to
15 percent. The underlying message is clear: Hong Kong residents are wary of the
legislation because they do not trust their largely undemocratic legislature,
which is perceived to be under the thumb of Beijing, said Michael DeGolyer,
director of the Hong Kong Transition Project, a long-term effort to measure of
effects of Hong Kong's handover to China. Under the "one country, two systems" arrangement in which Hong Kong
was returned to China, Hong Kong was promised a high degree of autonomy for 50
years. Beijing was to have jurisdiction only in national security and foreign
policy. All other matters were to be decided locally. But the deal left Beijing with an ace up its sleeve - the right to directly
select Hong Kong's chief executive and to indirectly influence the selection of
local legislators. Currently only 24 of the 60 legislators are chosen in direct
elections. The others are picked by functional constituencies or by an election
committee. The Basic Law says Hong Kong eventually should have full democracy but
provides no timetable beyond 2007, when the matter is supposed to come up for
review. Critics complain that Chief Executive Tung, a former shipping magnate who
earlier this year was re-appointed to a second five-year term, has undermined
democracy. They also complain that he is so eager to not offend Beijing that he
sometimes exceeds its demands. "We think the Hong Kong government is worse than Beijing," said Law
Yuk-kai, director of Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor, an independent rights
group. "We have a perfect form of slavery that doesn't require a
master." http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/world/4822972.htm
Yearly Archive
Printer Version
feedback@clearwisdom.net