Apple Daily Commentary: Article 23 Draft Alarming

(Clearwisdom.net) Recently the Hong Kong government repeatedly claimed that the specific policies of Article 23 are very liberal. Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee, chief of Hong Kong's Security Bureau, emphasized many times the policies in the draft of Article 23 will not damage citizens' basic rights and freedoms. If we take a careful look at the government's suggestions, we will know that the government's so-called guarantee is actually phony. In fact, the draft did not change or concede at all on many important issues. Such a law will inevitably cause great damage to citizens' basic rights and freedoms and the circulation of information.

The most obvious policy is the mechanism to ban local organizations. Although many religious and social organizations requested this mechanism be repealed, the SAR government insisted on keeping it in the draft, and the only change made was to standardize its form and procedures. In other words, the proposed law still allows Beijing's government to ban legally registered local organizations in Hong Kong that hold legal activities, with the excuse of harming national security. How can such a law not directly impact citizens' freedom of association?

What is more shocking is that although the law allows banned organizations to appeal, the SAR government nevertheless can prohibit the members of the organization and their attorneys to appear in court with the excuse of information security.

In other words, if members of a banned organization face secret trials and trials held without their presence, they will not be able to defend themselves in court and or be given a fair trial. Where is the true right to appeal?

Secret trials such as these have never occurred in Hong Kong's legal system. The fact that the government suddenly wants to adopt such a vicious policy will cause concerns among the people that the government will expand in power and manipulate the legal system.

Moreover, in regards to freedom of information and news, the government removed the crime of owning seditious articles, but yet retained the crime of dealing with seditious articles. This concept is not very clear and heavily political in nature. It can easily be abused by the government and people in power, which will greatly threaten the interest of citizens, the media, publishers and distributors. When people are afraid of violating the law and act accordingly, the room for free speech will be greatly reduced and the circulation of information will also be severely hindered. How can it not deeply affect the freedom of information in Hong Kong?

Let me restate my points. Article 23 of the Basic Law is a law that will affect the important rights and freedom of seven million Hong Kong citizens. The enactment of such a law cannot tolerate any slight mistakes, not to mention omissions or traps. However, the recently proposed draft is filled with different types of traps and the government even squeezed in things like secret trials. How can such a law not worry the people, and how will Hong Kong's people be able to sleep at night?

February 17, 2003

 Yearly Archive   Printer Version