(Clearwisdom.net) On February 14, 2003, the controversial and much debated "National Security (Legislative Provision) Bill" was published in the Gazette, which launched the enactment process of Article 23 of the Basic Law. People in the legal profession were astonished by the newly added item in the bill that seems to involve secret interrogation.

Picture shows 60,000 people parading the streets of Hong Kong to protest Article 23 on December 15, 2002 (AFP)

Looking at the Legislative Provision of Article 23 published in Gazette on February 14, the Hong Kong government has been concealing some important information in the Legislative Provision in order to deceive and mislead the Hong Kong people. In the Blue Bill [a bill that does not undergo further consultation and will be passed without change] submitted to the Legislative Council by the Hong Kong government for discussion, some policies suddenly appeared that were never mentioned in any draft proposed by the Hong Kong government in January or the public consultation documents in September; however, these policies will greatly affect many citizens and organizations.

On the afternoon of the 12^th, Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee, Chief of Hong Kong Security Bureau read a government announcement regarding enactment of Article 23 at the Legislative Council. The media thought that Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee would follow convention and hold a press conference immediately after the meeting; however, she held the press conference on the 13^th and answered questions from news reporters. The reporters learnt after asking questions that organizations in Hong Kong could be banned even if they didn't commit a crime. The reason for banning an organization not only includes being a "branch of banned organizations in mainland China" as the government has been emphasizing, but also includes local organizations that provide material support to banned organizations in China or receive material support from banned organizations in China, which is now listed as a crime. Hong Kong people and organizations who have close contacts with organizations or individuals in mainland China will easily fall into the trap set up by Article 23.

On the press conference held on the 13^th, a news reporter asked Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee, whether the branch organization that doesn't commit any crime but has a relationship with a banned organization in mainland China would be guilty? She answered that this is going to hold guilty, and the organization would have been guilty only if its activity in Hong Kong damages national security. If the organization holds civil or religious activities in Hong Kong, that would be no problem and the organization would not be held guilty. However, the following answer she gave was different.

Regarding the principle of launching the "Mechanism of Banning Organizations" by the Security Bureau, some news reporters pointed out that the central government's certificate banning organizations is a need from their legal standpoint. The prerequisite for banning an organization must be that it has a subordinate relationship with a banned organization in China. Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee said that Hong Kong people of an organization can support organizations in mainland China and provide material to them; only when the activity of that organization in Hong Kong damages national security will the government launch the "Mechanism of Banning Organizations."

Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee further pointed out that even if a Hong Kong organization does not truly commit a crime, it is true that it can still be banned. Because if there is an organization in mainland China that threatens to split the country with violence and an organization in Hong Kong provides money to that organization and assists in the activity of splitting the country with violence, it might damage the national security and needs to be banned, even if providing money to an organization might not have guilt in and of itself.

Some news reporters asked Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee to explain the newly added item in the most recent publication of "National Security (Legislative Provision) Bill" regarding the definition of "Subordinate," meaning local organizations in Hong Kong "directly or indirectly look for or accept considerable finance capital, supplement or material support, or the considerable amount of loan from organizations in mainland China," whether it implicates expanding the definition of "Subordinate" to include more organizations. Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee answered that the definition of "Subordinate" is not expanded, and that the government only took reference from previous policies regarding social organizations.

The Hong Kong government did not mention the above content when it published the revised version of Article 23 in January, and it only claimed that the government had accepted public opinion and made nine revisions and deleted certain items. The government tried to shape a temperate image to relieve people's vigilance, and suddenly published the unreasonable items several days ago, catching the people off guard. The people suddenly realized they can be sent to jail at any time and they live under the shadow of terrorism.

Regarding the issue of "Being Guilty by Words," which the Hong Kong Bar Association is most concerned about, news reporters asked Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee whether there is an item to clear the people's concerns on this issue, she said that the media was most concerned with whether the public has the right to make "People's Appeal and Protests" and we have sufficient reason to not discuss this issue.

People in the legal profession were astonished by the newly added item which seems involving secret interrogation. Apple Daily summarized the newly published "National Security Bill" and pointed out there are still many worrisome dubious points in the National Security Bill" including eight items. For example, the Hong Kong government does not need to prove whether banned organizations in mainland China are guilty, etc. The item that is paid attention to most was the appeal process regarding banned organizations in Hong Kong. BBC reported that according to the newly published "National Security Bill," the court can hold a trial in the absence of people involved or their attorneys; moreover, the court can hold a trial even if the defendant is not given all the reasons from the government why his/her organization is banned.

The Hong Kong media quoted words from the member of the Legislative Council, Ms. Audrey Eu, SC., that the way to hold similar trials in the absence of related parties or secret trials had never occurred before in Hong Kong. The former Chair of Hong Kong Bar Association, a member from "Concerning Article 23 of the Basic Law Group," Alan Leong said that "closing the door and holding a trial" was never heard before in Hong Kong; banning organizations involves the human rights of the Hong Kong people including freedom of forming associations, and should not be deprived.

The report quoted Audrey Eu's words and these items that had never appeared before in the consultation document had greater consequences than the consultation document. The report also said ZEN Joseph, Bishop of Catholic Diocese of Hong Kong accused the "National Security Bill" published by the Hong Kong district government of "damaging the 'one country, two systems'" policy. The report said that these items that were newly added to the Blue Bill shocked the legal world.

February 15, 2003