[The Flying Tigers were a brave group of American airmen who helped China resist the Japanese invasion during World War II.]

To the Government of Hong Kong:

I want to make a few comments to the appropriate people in the government of Hong Kong about Article 23, "anti-sedition" legislation which would, if passed, mean that "People found guilty under the new law can be imprisoned for life" (BBC). I see no evidence that Hong Kong needs such a law. While I love and respect China (including Hong Kong) and its people, I want to add my voice to the tens of thousands who have taken part in protests against this legislation.

I hope that you will read this e-mail and forward it to the right people and offices. Please treat this as "Urgent," since a deadline is approaching (for "stage 1" on 24 December.

As a child born in 1950, I always knew I wanted to spend a part of my life in China. My father was an aerial reconnaissance photographer in the Flying Tigers during World War II, and he had shared his pictures and stories with me. His respect for the Chinese people has always been profound. Thanks to Hong Kong and the media opportunities there, my dream came true.

I worked in Hong Kong from 1983 to 1985 as a broadcast journalist. I was a Senior Subeditor for Hong Kong TVB (Pearl). While there, I was able to travel in China, and I have visited, with my father (now a retired two-star general), some of the places he spent time during the war. Our love and respect for China has grown as a result.

My work at TVB took place during the time of the "1997 Talks on Hong Kong's Future" between Britain and the People's Republic of China. Week after week I remember our Beijing reporters' reports echoing the words of the participants saying the talks were "useful and constructive." If one week they were "useful and businesslike," we all speculated on what that might mean. Was "businesslike" better, or maybe worse, than "constructive"? At the end of the day (and at the beginning), the "one country, two systems" approach won out. Hong Kong residents would enjoy the same freedoms and similar autonomy under China until 2047, that they had enjoyed under Britain in 1995.

Back here in my native United States, I have been fortunate to work as a medical video producer/director at one of the top universities in the world. Here, as in Hong Kong, I really enjoy the international mix of people. Duke University's students, professors and visiting scholars have included many people from China, including some from Hong Kong. Additionally, I have made the acquaintance of a number of Falun Gong practitioners (from China, Vietnam, the US, South America, etc.), whom I find to be sincere and often delightful people. I find no fault in their core teaching of the importance of "Truthfulness, Benevolence, and Forbearance," (Zhen, Shan, Rhen).

I believe that Article 23 targets Falun Gong, as well as other groups. Bishop Joseph Zen, head of the Catholic diocese in Hong Kong, warns that the law will roll back religious freedom and free speech -- "freedoms Beijing promised to leave alone in Hong Kong for 50 years at the handover" (CNN).

Thus, I believe, Article 23 will also have the effect of eroding the entire "one country two systems" approach. As that erosion progresses, so does the erosion of the credibility of the Beijing government in its conduct of both internal and external affairs (as the 1997 Agreement was signed with a foreign power but related to Chinese real estate).

Specifically, if "one country, two systems until 2047" really means "one country with Beijing-controlled SAR's and human rights administered by 'puppet' officials at the pleasure of Beijing," the people of Taiwan and the rest of the world will not believe that China will keep her future promises about any "one China" agreements.

I have read some of the "reassurances," from officials, including the remarks by Solicitor General, Mr. Bill Allock, who indicates: (http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/200212/15/1213276.htm) "No one wants to turn harmless acts of protest into serious crimes against the state." Certainly in China, the government has done exactly that in the case of Falun Gong and others. With no disrespect intended towards Mr. Allock, official denial of sinister intent is often a warning signal that the intent exists somewhere at the core of the plan. A study of history will reveal this to be true both here in the US and elsewhere, including China and so Hong Kong. Moreover, Mr. Allock must admit that the threat of life imprisonment hanging over the heads of writers, editors, groups and organizations will have a dampening effect on the manifestation of the liberties that are inherent in the fabric of life in Hong Kong.

The reassurances are simply not convincing. One need only ask, "What problem exists that requires the implementation of such legislation?" Concerns expressed about the offence of "possessing seditious publications," and about changes in police powers and restrictions on organizations do not bode well.

Finally, I hope and believe that the people of China will, as education and prosperity advance in your great nation, enjoy more of the freedoms and openness which have been a part of Hong Kong life for many years. I do not find that freedom of speech and assembly, freedom of the press, or freedom of religion are either specifically western, nor that they are contrary to the fundamental principles of socialism. I hope that Hong Kong can be an example to China and lead the way into the light in these areas, even after 2047, and that China can lead the way in advancing the concepts of social justice in Hong Kong and elsewhere in the world.

A system that is rigid and depends on repression and obfuscation for survival is a system that is not working well. It is a system that will change. A system that works well is as flexible as bamboo and as transparent as space.

Claiborne M. Clark
Video Producer/Director
Duke University