By
Is freedom of expression and
association under threat
in
over the
government's proposals, published
last week, to enact
laws on crimes that
endanger national security.
First let me state categorically
that the basic
freedoms and rights of
compromised. We have made sure
that our proposals
on Article 23 of our
Basic Law comply with well-established
common law and
international human rights principles. All
laws enacted in
international human rights
jurisprudence.
Some people argue that
on Article 23, which
covers offences against national
security. This overlooks two
facts:
Firstly, all countries have laws
to protect national
security but, in
laws on this subject do
not apply. It has been left up
to the Hong Kong SAR
government to enact laws "on its
own." This in
itself shows a great measure of trust in
authorities. We are not
introducing mainland law into
imagine
laws against treasonous
acts or foreign organizations
bent on the overthrow of
the
Secondly, we have a
constitutional and legal
obligation, under our Basic
Law, to enact such laws.
By doing so, we fulfill our role
to implement "one
country, two systems."
Five years after reunification,
it is time to move
ahead on a matter that is regarded
as extremely important
by our sovereign. By doing so,
we will remove once and
for all the uncertainties that
have cropped up from time
to time over the past five
years as to when, and in
what form, Article 23 will be
implemented.
We also have a moral duty, as a
SAR of China, to
protect the security and
sovereignty of our country.
Why should
obligation to do so, or indeed
feel uncomfortable in
doing so, compared to
citizens in other countries?
In releasing proposals on
Article 23, we expressed the
sincere hope for a reasoned
and dispassionate
discussion and consultation on
the issue over the next
three months. We know that
this is a sensitive topic
and one that will come
under intense scrutiny in Hong
Kong and
internationally. As with all open and
transparent governments, we have
put out our proposals
in detail for public
debate. These discussions and
debates will no doubt be
covered fully by the local
and international media.
Our proposals have met with a
good measure of support.
Some have praised our proposals
as reasonable and
moderate. But criticisms have
also been aired, much of
which based on the
spurious grounds of "what if"
doomsday scenarios, and a
flawed understanding of what
has actually been put
forward.
Such unbalanced assessments
point to a rather paranoid
view of the world and do
nothing to further debate on
the issue. They also
paint an overly pessimistic and
untrue picture of the
intentions of the Hong Kong SAR
Government, which is acutely
aware that the free flow of
information and expression of
views is vital to our continued
development as an international
business and trading centre.
We have an unflinching intention
to protect these rights and
freedoms.
Many of the proposals draw on
existing laws that will
be modernized and narrowed
considerably in scope so
that, in most cases,
violence, or the threat of
violence, or grave criminal
conduct is required before
an offence is
committed.
For example, the proposals
relating to foreign
political organizations use
existing definitions under
the Societies Ordinance.
They criminalize only those
activities that truly endanger
the security of the
state, that is, activities
that involve the commission
of treason, secession,
sedition, subversion or the
theft of state secrets.
Further, an organization can
only be banned in
circumstances permitted under the
International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
In addition, checks and balances
have been added that
provide a two-tier review of
a decision that
proscribes and declares an
organization unlawful. The
proposed appeal mechanism
does not exist under current
laws, and is an added
safeguard to protect the
legitimate rights of
organizations in
Some of those now criticizing
the proposals have often
been quick in the past to
predict the erosion of Hong
Kong's civil
liberties and economic freedoms. Five
years after reunification,
these dire forecasts have
been proved wrong. The U.S. State Department, the
House of Representatives, the
Government and the European
Commission have all
published regular reports
since 1997 noting the smooth
and successful
implementation of "one country, two
systems" and the
protection of the rights and freedoms
of
The proposals we have put
forward will not have any
adverse impact on freedom of
expression, or freedom of
the press, as they are
currently enjoyed. If areas of
concern are raised by the
community during the
consultation period, we will pay
attention. For after
all, we share a common
goal with the citizens of Hong
Kong and our international
supporters to preserve the
freedom of expression in
together in a calm and
rational manner we can achieve
that goal.
Ms. Ip
is