Hong Kong's Law On Treason Meets Stiff Resistance

by Mary Swire, Tax-News.com, Hong Kong

05 February 2003

Article 23 of Hong Kong's Basic Law, the 'constitution' under which it became part of China again, requires that the ex-colony writes laws against subversion, secession, sedition and treason. Last year the Government came under heavy fire from pro-rights groups when it published the draft of a law which seemed to give Beijing extensive direct powers to intervene in the SAR's affairs. Now the Government says it has accepted most of the criticisms levelled against its draft, and is preparing a new one.

Changes include scrapping the offences of possession of seditious publications and misprision of treason (failure to report treason offences), and a plan for a special appeals tribunal to deal with proscribed organisations has been abandoned. Appeals will be adjudicated by the courts and there will be an option of trial by jury. And a Court-issued warrant will be required for the seizure of journalistic materials. But the Government has stood firm on proscribing local groups affiliated with mainland organisations that have been banned on national security grounds.

Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa said the changes were made to safeguard press freedom and other rights and freedoms: "The media expressed worries during the consultation exercise. We must allay their worries because we have no intention of undermining press freedom."

Secretary for Security Regina Ip, whose public pronouncements on the previous draft had seemed autocratic to many, denied that the Government had caved in to public pressure but was forced to admit that changes had been made: "We have to protect the state security on one hand and safeguard Hong Kong people's freedoms and rights and their lifestyle,'' she said. After the draft bill was published, the public could still submit their views, she said.

Lawyers however were scathing about the changes. Article 23 Concern Group spokesperson Margaret Ng said the consultation process had been a 'sham', and her group would perform its own analysis of the submissions made to the Government. The Group pointed out that the Government had openly ignored many of the views put to it, including those of the Bar Association and Hong Kong University's Faculty of Law, calling them 'unclear'.

"We are saddened and angered that the Security Bureau would allow itself to misrepresent public views in order to generate a picture of support for the proposals. The whole consultation process will be shown to be wholly discredited," said Ng.

After an outpouring of objections to the process in Hong Kong's media, Regina Ip attempted to be more conciliatory during a radio show interview, saying she regretted some of her controversial remarks on the proposed law. "I agree there were things I could have said better," she said. "And I'm also not satisfied with my performance. I hope I can do it better."

She had to apologise in particular about saying: "McDonald's waiters and taxi drivers and the like won't be interested in reading a white bill because it is very technical and complicated," and for implying that democracy had caused Hitler's rise to power.

Recommended