(New York, May 20, 2003) - Hong Kong's legislature should reject controversial national security legislation because it will roll back basic freedoms, Human Rights Watch said today.

Executive Director of the Asia division at Human Rights Watch

Despite domestic and international protest, the Hong Kong government has rushed the National Security (Legislative Provisions) Bill through the legislative process. The bill to prohibit "treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People's Government or theft of state secrets" is slated to be voted into law at the last Legislative Council (LegCo) sitting on July 9.

"The clock is ticking on civil liberties in Hong Kong," said Brad Adams, executive director of the Asia division at Human Rights Watch. "If enacted in its present form, this bill will introduce Chinese legal standards through the back door and could forever erode the civil liberties and civil society that today distinguish Hong Kong from China."

Human Rights Watch has sent an open letter to members of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong analyzing and setting out profound concerns regarding the National Security (Legislative Provisions) Bill. Human Rights Watch said that modifications to the legislation following a public consultation period addressed some of the more problematic provisions. However, if enacted, the law would still threaten basic human rights and fundamental freedoms in Hong Kong.

The 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration explicitly guarantees that all of Hong Kong's freedoms--including press freedom, religious freedom, and freedom of association--will continue for at least 50 years. Human Rights Watch said that Hong Kong is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and laws should not be enacted that would compromise its international commitments.

As Human Rights Watch has documented over the past decade, similar subversion laws on the mainland are regularly used to convict and imprison journalists, labor activists, Internet entrepreneurs and academics. Now that Hong Kong is part of China, a new subversion law that mirrors those on the mainland gives reason for concern that human rights in Hong Kong may be under threat.

"Even in democratic societies, crimes such as sedition, treason, secession and subversion are inevitably imprecise and open for selective abuse," said Adams. "Given China's history of arbitrary application of its own criminal law against dissenters and Beijing's clear ability to interfere in Hong Kong's decision-making process, the new subversion legislation poses a real threat to freedoms in the territory."

Human Rights Watch identified a number of troubling changes to the current legal system in Hong Kong that would result from the passage of the government's bill:

• Subversion could be committed if an individual "disestablishes" the system of China or "intimidates" the mainland government by means that endangers the "stability" of China. None of these terms is defined in the law. As a result, the government could classify public rallies such as those annually commemorating the Tiananmen events of June 4 as "serious unlawful means" and prosecute those participating for subversion.
• New categories of protected information are added to Hong Kong law, such as "information related to Hong Kong affairs within the responsibility of the Central Authorities," and information, documents, or articles on defense and foreign affairs -- all common areas of reporting today in Hong Kong.
• New authority is given to senior police commanders to order searches without a warrant in national security cases. This is a serious break with Hong Kong's legal tradition. Any such authority should be reserved for the judiciary and permitted only in the narrowest of circumstances.

• Sedition, an offense which is widely abused in China, is set forth in very general terms, instead of being limited to prohibiting direct incitement to armed rebellion. This includes criminal penalties of up to seven years' imprisonment for publishing, selling, distributing, displaying, printing, reproducing or trading any "seditious" publication with intent to incite others.

Human Rights Watch said that one reason the government is rushing the bill through the legislature could be that the majority of the Legislative Council now considering the subversion bill is not democratically elected. With the government controlling the bills committee and a majority of the votes, it is unlikely any amendments to protect civil liberties will be passed.

The Hong Kong government insists that passage of subversion legislation is mandated by Article 23 of the Basic Law, Hong Kong's mini-constitution. But many legal experts, including the Hong Kong Bar Association, have long questioned both the urgency and the need for new legislation as Hong Kong's laws already adequately cover any acts that could be deemed subversive.

Human Rights Watch pointed out that the Basic Law also mandates a move toward democratic election of the legislature and chief executive with the ultimate goal of "universal suffrage" -- a process the Hong Kong government has to date stymied.

"Hong Kong's 7 million people have been peacefully and responsibly exercising their freedoms for nearly six years," said Adams. "The clear majority of Hong Kong people are opposed to this bill. We urge LegCo to heed public opinion and firmly reject the legislation."

Human Rights Watch said that the United Kingdom, the United States, Japan and European Union countries have a strong interest in seeing freedoms survive in Hong Kong, and should privately and publicly communicate to Beijing how damaging to Hong Kong's image and interests passage of the subversion law would be.

"The British government, as a party to the Joint Declaration, and the United States, under the U.S-Hong Kong Policy Act, each have specific responsibilities to ensure the continuation of basic freedoms in Hong Kong," Adams said. "Both governments must insist that Hong Kong not bow to Chinese pressure to pass the subversion legislation into law."

http://hrw.org/press/2003/05/hk052003.htm

Posting date: 5/24/2003
Original article date: 5/23/2003
Category: News & Media Reports

 Yearly Archive  Printer Version