![]() | ||||
|
Media Report: Worldwide Attention Paid to Article 23 Legislation in Hong Kong (Clearwisdom.net) Free Asia World Journal Free Asia Broadcast Station: Human Rights Organizations Call for
Extension to Article 23 Consultation Free Asia broadcast station December 24, 2002 report from Hong Kong: the
consultation period for Article 23 of the Basic Law of Hong Kong ended on
Tuesday, December 24, 2002. Timothy Tong, Acting Permanent Secretary of the
Security Bureau said 90,000 comments from more than 800 organizations were
received [...]. On Tuesday, many organizations appealed in front of the Hong Kong SAR
government headquarters. Human rights representatives from more than 40
organizations delivered an appeal letter signed by 170,000 Hong Kong citizens in
opposition to Article 23. The representatives said Article 23 deprives people of
their human rights and seriously threatens civil rights, including freedom of
belief, freedom of press and freedom of speech. From its headquarters in New York City, Human Rights in China (HRIC) recently
published a news article calling for an extension to the consultation period for
Article 23. HRIC suggested that the Hong Kong government publish an official
White Bill so the public can comment on the specific language used in the draft. World Journal: [San Francisco] Bay area T.V. Audience Opposes
Article 23 World Journal December 25, 2002 report: a TV audience in the Bay area
responded to Article 23 with mostly opposing comments. Audience members who phoned in said enactment of Article 23 is inappropriate
at this time for Hong Kong, which is in a poor economic situation right now, and
it will cause a great drop in investment confidence. The Chinese audience in San
Jose pointed out that Article 23 contains obscure definitions, and would lead to
the same abuses that take place in Mainland China against groups such as Falun
Gong. Some other Chinese audience members thought Article 23 "is
unreasonable" and "unfit for democracy." However, the Hong Kong
government is restricted by the Basic Law and cannot refuse to enact a law. A
San Jose resident who had just returned from Hong Kong said the government
should publish the detailed content of Article 23 in order to avoid serious
problems. According to him, it is very ridiculous to regard Hong Kong as a base
for subversion. Another San Jose resident said there is no need for enactment of Article 23.
Hong Kong enjoyed a prosperous economy during the colonization period and was
called the Pearl of the East. It was free although not very democratic; after
the enactment of Article 23, freedom will be inevitably affected. Another resident thought the argument surrounding Article 23 shows this law
has more negative aspects than positive ones, and there will be an even greater
argument after its enactment that will lead to social instability. A San
Francisco resident pointed out that [freedom of speech] is guaranteed in
the U.S. because there are public forums and representatives in the Congress, so
the people's voice can be heard. The Hong Kong government is in a haste to enact
Article 23 because they are receiving pressure from the Beijing government. A public opinion survey showed 46.7% of Hong Kong citizens oppose the
enactment of Article 23 while 20.4% express support and 64% think the enactment
will not be successful. Posting date: 12/30/2002
feedback@clearwisdom.net |