October 1 2002

The government of Hong Kong has, since the return to China of the former British colony in 1997, insisted that life has been proceeding as normal. The government even tracked a statistical average for political protests and did not seem to mind that many were directed against it.

Last week, as the government began a consultation about laws that would define what constitutes sedition and subversion in the territory, the concerns voiced about Hong Kong's future direction reached a crescendo. The anti-sedition laws are so controversial and sensitive in Hong Kong, says Christine Loh, a former legislator, because they go to the root of the differences in the fundamental freedoms enjoyed by mainland Chinese and Hong Kong citizens - the freedom to demonstrate being just one of them.

Many groups in Hong Kong, including the Bar Association, had previously argued that existing laws in the territory were sufficient to deal with subversive activities and that there was no need to enact additional laws. But the proposals the government has put forward have set off alarm bells precisely because they envisage, for instance, prohibiting organisations proscribed by Beijing if China thinks these organisations are a threat to national security.

The manner in which any new laws are enforced will ultimately settle the argument. But the picture already looks ominous. Hong Kong, a city with civil liberties enshrined in its post-colonial constitution, stands poised to enact laws on sedition and subversion that would in many cases allow its Communist sovereign, which has been often- criticised on civil liberties grounds, to define what sort of behaviour crosses the line.

To make matters worse, the decision to push ahead with such laws appears to be at Beijing's behest, which critics charge provides yet another example of the Hong Kong government ceding its autonomy.

Earlier this summer, Qian Qichen, Chinese vice-premier, said it was time for Hong Kong to enact such laws, but the consultation seems poorly timed . "There have been no cries of independence or threats to sovereignty that justifies such a law," Martin Lee, the leader of the local Democratic Party observes.

As the territory struggles through its second economic downturn in five years, confidence among its 7m population is already at lows not seen in decades. Despite the Hong Kong government's efforts to allay fears ahead of the consultation document being released last week, the document is "not as comforting as the government has made it out to be", said Audrey Eu, a local legislator.

The unease has centred on a section in the document entitled "Foreign Political Organisations," especially how the government might apply this to the Falun Gong, a spiritual group outlawed in China, but legal in Hong Kong. There are fewer Falun Gong members in Hong Kong - about 500, which is thought to be fewer than in Sydney - but they have used its freedoms to organise several protests against visiting Chinese leadership.

To many observers, their right do so seemed a pretty persuasive example that it was business as usual in Hong Kong, but the local government has been embarrassed by these demonstrations. Both Hong Kong's chief executive, Tung Chee-hwa and its secretary for security, Regina Ip, have publicly attacked the group.

When it comes to issues of national security, Hong Kong's courts may have no option but to refer such controversial cases to Beijing. In 1999, the local government referred a landmark immigration judgment by Hong Kong's highest court to Beijing, which effectively overruled it.

Given this backdrop, the primary bulwark against arbitrary use of such laws may not only be Hong Kong's excellent judiciary, but the local government itself. Over the past couple of years, however, the precedents the government has set are not reassuring. In addition to referral of the landmark judgment, it has routinely deported several foreign followers of the Falun Gong who were visiting Hong Kong to participate in demonstrations against the Chinese leadership.

The Hong Kong government has argued that governments around the world reserve the right to deport people. Few governments have the responsibility of upholding local autonomy under a Communist sovereign, however. On recent evidence, it is becoming harder and harder to argue that it is business as usual in Hong Kong.

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1031119792179&p=1012571727169