|
UK Parliament Debate Article 23 -- Two Chairmen Express Concern
On 26/11/02, the UK House of Commons conducted a debate on the widely opposed
Article 23 legislation in Hong Kong.
Mr. Howard Flight MP who is a joint chairman of the all-party House of
Commons Hong Kong committee initiated the parliament debate. He told MPs "The
debate centers on whether the proposals are essentially a modernization of
archaic laws--which is, broadly, the Hong Kong Government's argument--or whether
they are a beginning of the application of mainland concepts of national
security, under something of a disguise."
He explained "There is an argument of principle that it [Article 23] is in
breach of the provisions of the joint declaration, as it calls for the
application to Hong Kong of legal concepts that are incompatible with the
freedoms guaranteed by article 3(5) of the joint declaration. ...
"It is argued that the Hong Kong laws that would prohibit subversion against
the mainland Central People's Government could be contrary to the articles of
the international covenant on civil and political rights relating to freedom of
expression.
He exposed the Jiang regime's pressure: "In June, matters came to a head when
the Chinese Vice-Premier Qian Qichen was reported as saying that the Government
of Hong Kong should get a move on with enacting article 23 ... He claimed,
however, that it would be illegal for Falun Gong members to retain links with
Falun Gong practitioners outside Hong Kong--that is, on the mainland."
Mr. Flight stressed, "A main concern is that the legislative proposals could
potentially allow the Government to ban any organization of which the Beijing
Government disapprove, where provisions in the area are not even specifically
required by article 23 of the Basic Law.
"Few states have express laws against secession and many do not have laws
against subversion. The mainland concept of national security is very different
from what we are all used to in democratic countries. The deal agreed under the
joint declaration was that the PRC concept of national security would not be
applied to Hong Kong."
He also exposed the fact that "The mainland Government have traditionally
used the offence of subversion to persecute and suppress legitimate opposition." Mr. Flight expressed his concern about the proposal which could allow the
Chinese regime to force the ban of organization in Hong Kong that it does not
like: "they [HK authorities] propose a new mechanism for banning organizations
affiliated with a mainland organization that the central authorities have
proscribed in accordance with national law, on the grounds that it would
endanger national security. In that context, affiliated means connected. The key
concern is that if such an organization is proscribed on the mainland, Hong Kong
is notified. There will inevitably be such evidence of past or present
connections between such organizations that the Hong Kong Government are
effectively obliged to ban them."
He specifically stated that the HK government "must demonstrate" that "they
would not be forced to ban organizations that were banned in the mainland."
Mr. Ben Chapman, another co-chairman of the Hong Kong committee and also the
chairman of the all-party group on China said "The House has continuing
responsibilities in relation to Hong Kong under the terms of the joint
declaration, because of its intrinsic importance and our major investment and
commercial, cultural and educational interests there. Also, we have an interest
in the 3.4 million British passport holders in Hong Kong, especially the British
nationals overseas.
Like everything else in Hong Kong, Article 23 needs to be seen in relation to
the "one nation, two systems" concept, and against the background of the
maintenance of confidence--internal and external--which drives the Special
Administrative Region. I fear that Qian Qichen's comments do not seem entirely
helpful when put in that context, or in the context of democratization."
He also commented "In my view, the present ministerial system is not
sustainable in the long term" and "Progress towards universal suffrage is
inadequate."
Source: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/cm021126/halltext/21126h01.htm#21126h01_spnew46
Posting date: 12/8/2002 |