SCMP (South China Morning Post): Epic debate on Article 23 reaches a climax

05/03/2003

Another landmark step will be taken today in what is becoming a rapid march towards the passing of controversial new national security laws in Hong Kong.

Sixty groups and individuals will line up at Legco to express their views on the government's blue bill, in the third and final public participation session. Ahead of the session, Solicitor-General Bob Allcock revealed to the South China Morning Post that a package of proposed amendments to the bill is likely to be put before the Executive Council for approval before lawmakers complete their scrutiny. Participants at the public session will be given just five minutes to speak, with the Law Society and Bar Association competing for space with the April Fifth Action Group and the Tseung Kwan O Fujianese Association.

The process has been labelled a charade by lawyers and legal academics who fear that a combination of the Sars outbreak, party politics and the government's determination to have the bill passed by July are preventing rational debate of crucial legal issues.

Former Bar Association chairman Ronny Tong Ka-wah SC, said: "I have come to the rather pessimistic point of view that if they want to pass these laws in record time, let them do so. History will say one of the most important pieces of legislation Hong Kong has ever passed was rushed through in three or four months, and the so-called public consultation is an absolute farce."

The legislation, to be passed under Article 23 of the Basic Law, has been dubbed Hong Kong's ticking time bomb by the Human Rights Monitor. Introducing the crimes of subversion and secession, and giving the government a new power to ban groups, it has prompted unprecedented concern about the potential erosion of rights and freedoms.

The two previous sessions in which the public were invited to express their views to the relevant bills committee were dominated by pro-mainland groups wanting to assert their patriotism and their belief that the laws should be passed as quickly as possible. There was little debate on the substance of the bill.

Mr Tong described the process as "five minutes for people who have nothing to say except to express their political stance".

Today's session, which was added after complaints that many groups did not know of the arrangements for previous meetings until after the deadlines had passed, might be more interesting. Among those seeking to make their five minutes count will be the Falun Gong spiritual movement, which is banned on the mainland, human rights watchdog Amnesty International and former solicitor-general Daniel Fung Wah-kin SC.

But this level of public participation is a far cry from the scenes last December, when an estimated 60,000 people took to the streets to protest against the proposed laws, in the biggest demonstration since Hong Kong's return to China.

Drawn from a wide section of society, they were driven by fears that the laws would curb their freedoms and change forever Hong Kong's traditional way of life.

A week later, around 40,000 rallied to show their support for the legislation, amid concerns the issue would prompt a damaging split in society. Media coverage was dominated by the debate and it seemed everyone, from the US State Department to worried artists in Hong Kong, was expressing concern about the impact of the proposals.

All this was only a few months ago, but it already seems to belong to a different era. The outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (Sars) in March has already changed Hong Kong's way of life and given people something much more dangerous and urgent to contend with.

But, as critics of the laws are quick to point out, the concerns that drove thousands to the streets in December have not gone away. And once the national security laws are on the statute books, they are likely to remain in force long after Sars has been beaten.

Some prominent academics and lawyers have even called for the whole process to be postponed, given that public interest in Article 23 has understandably slumped while the community tackles the disease. Some of these concerns were eased when the Security Bureau announced a number of changes to the proposals - which it prefers to call "clarifications" - earlier this year. These went further than many had expected, and were clearly a response to worries expressed by the public.

However, many fundamental questions remain about how the new laws will be implemented, what their scope will be, and the extent to which they may impinge on rights and freedoms. The Bar Association has submitted a detailed 24-page paper which seeks explanations from the government on many different aspects of the bill. What, it asks, is meant by "intimidating" the central government under the new treason law. What would constitute "disestablishing" the basic system of the People's Republic of China, as set out in the subversion offence? The paper questions the vague wording of laws that prohibit the handling of seditious material, and argues that economic or commercial data might be covered by a new category of secret information concerning "Hong Kong affairs within the responsibility of the central authorities". Similar concerns have been raised by legal academics. In particular, the new power to ban organisations on national security grounds has come in for particular criticism. And the Article 23 Concern Group, comprising prominent lawyers and academics, has released a booklet for the public called "Why the Blue Bill is Not Good Enough". In the light of such concerns, the legislative process was clearly going to be of vital importance. But the first reading of the bill was marked by a walkout by legislators opposed to its provisions. A record 50 lawmakers joined the bills committee, whose job is to scrutinise legislative bills: the majority was from the pro-government camp. But the workings of the committee have been plagued by political infighting. Pro-government legislators are seeking to ensure progress is sufficiently swift to meet the government's July deadline for passage, while pro-democracy opponents do their best to delay the proceedings.

There have been walkouts, allegations that the committee chairman is improperly consulting with officials, and at times only five of the 50 committee members have remained in meetings. "I am very concerned about the bills committee. I am wasting my time there," said Margaret Ng Ngoi-yee, a barrister and the legal sector's representative in Legco.

The meetings invariably begin with a "great clash of political positions," she said. Ms Ng said she felt frustrated that her questions were not being properly addressed by the government and that there was insufficient consideration of the views of the legal profession and academics.

Ms Ng said the committee was simply not doing its job. "This is a working party. It is our job to make the bill as free from errors as possible, regardless of whether you are in favour of the legislation or against it."

[...]