In the biggest political demonstration in Hong Kong since China resumed sovereignty over the territory in 1997, 60,000 people took to the streets on December 15. The protest was against the Hong Kong government's attempt — backed by Beijing — to legislate a vaguely worded and far reaching law to silence political and social dissent. More than 40 organisations, including a number of trade unions, jointly called the December 15 demonstration.

In the name of countering treason, secession, sedition, the theft of state secrets and outlawing links with “foreign political organisations”, the proposed law could result in those convicted being sentenced to jail for life or an unlimited fine. The law will be applied retrospectively, with no limit to how far back in time it will apply. The law applies to actions in Hong Kong and anywhere else in the world.

As it stands, sections of the proposed law will also apply to all foreigners while they are in Hong Kong, as well as to former Hong Kong nationals, who the government still considers to be permanent residents. Hundreds of thousands of people from Hong Kong have gained citizenship in other countries. It is generally unknown if and how a person can give up his or her Hong Kong permanent residency, a right that comes with being born there.

Outraged by this attempt to apply the law on an extra-territorial basis, protests in solidarity with the Hong Kong protest were held in a number of Canadian, US and Australian cities, where there are concentrations of former Hong Kong nationals.

The proposal is an attempt to translate the notorious Article 23 of Hong Kong's Basic Law — the territory's quasi-constitution — into full-fledged legislation. Even in its rudimentary form, when it was first proposed in 1988 to counter actions in “undermining national unity or subverting the central government”, Article 23 attracted widespread opposition. Attempts to legislate it were put on the backburner after the Tiananmen massacre in 1989, which provoked repeated solidarity protests in Hong Kong of between 250,000 and 1 million people.

However, as in many other countries, an “anti-terror” law which undermines civil liberties was successfully pushed through in Hong Kong in the wake of the 9/11 attacks in the US. Two months later, in September, a detailed “consultation paper” on Article 23 suddenly appeared, with submissions allowed until Christmas Eve.

The extent of mass concern (visit <http://www.article23.org> for details) was illustrated by the fact that, by the time the consultation period closed, the Hong Kong government had received more than 90,000 submissions on the subject.

Canada's consul general expressed concern at the law's extra-territorial applications, its impact on freedom of expression and association and the new restrictions on links with foreign political organisations.

In the name of combating “crimes” against China, the proposed law stretches the definition of “treason” and related activities to far-fetched territories and in such vague terms that it could potentially strangle any criticism of Chinese government policies.

The provisions of the proposed legislation include (the entire proposal is at <http://www.info.gov.hk/sb>):

• A person is considered to have committed treason if he/she “levies war” against the state by joining forces with a foreigner. This includes acts with the intent to “compel the government by force or constraint to change its policies” or to “intimidate or overawe” the government (which covers the basic intentions of most peaceful protests). Offensive acts include non-violent threats such as electronic sabotage. When a foreigner is not involved, similar acts will be labelled subversion, but are also subject to harsh penalties.

• Being aware of treasonous acts but not reporting them to the authorities within “a reasonable time” will be a statutory offence. This could compel the entire population to spy on each other.

• In the name of upholding China's “territorial integrity”, the advocacy of secession will be criminalised. This would include activities or comments in solidarity with the self-determination movements of Taiwan, Tibet or Xinjiang. Even a foreigner who has engaged in such acts outside Hong Kong could be arrested for such an “offence” while transiting through the territory.

• The definition of sedition will include any verbal or written communications, including those conveyed electronically, that could incite others to act against the “stability of the state”. This clause will apply to all Hong Kong permanent residents and other foreigners anywhere in the world. “Dealing” with seditious publications will also be made a crime.

• What constitutes “state secrets” is loosely defined and covers, among other things, all communications between the central and Hong Kong governments. Journalists in Hong Kong have stated that the already serious self-censorship of the Hong Kong media will get worse if that proposal becomes law.

• “To prevent foreign political organisations from conducting activities” in Hong Kong or “establishing ties with local political organisations that are harmful to national security or unity”, states the Article 23 consultation document, suspect organisations will be “proscribed”. Proscribed organisations blacklisted in mainland China will also be blacklisted in Hong Kong without further review.

• In “emergencies”, which officials have the power to define, private premises can be entered, searched and taken over without a warrant.

To join the campaign against Article 23, visit <http://www.article23.org>.

From Green Left Weekly, January 15, 2003.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page. 

Tools

• Bookmark This Page
• Print This Page