Hong Kong Christian Institute's Submission to the
April 22, 2003
The Hong Kong Christian Institute
(HKCI) is a non-profit Christian organisation whose objective is to gather
concerned Christians to be active participants in civil society and to make a
continuing contribution to the community and the ecumenical movement.
Regarding the National Security (Legislative
Provisions) Bill 2003, HKCI wants to express our concerns about the bill as
well as the attitude of government officials in responding to the anxieties of
the public. We also want to inform the Legislative Council (Legco) about our
position on this proposed legislation.
Since the government of the Hong
Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) released its Article 23 consultation
document in September 2002, many questions and concerns have been raised by
legal professionals, journalists, members of the religious community, human
rights groups, academics and others in Hong Kong. One of the major concerns was
that the contents of the consultation document were so vague and broad that
they could easily be abused by the government. Although the government
has made some amendments to the legislation after the consultation, the
criminal offences in the bill are still ambiguous which could allow the
government to use the law to deny, rather than protect, the rights of Hong Kong's
people. For instance, regarding the offence of treason in the bill, the government
should provide examples to illustrate what kind of "intent" would be
sufficient to constitute an intent to intimidate the central government.
Second, through enacting such
legislation, the HKSAR government will introduce into Hong Kong the mainland
practice of using "national security" as a pretext to silence
dissenting opinions, suppress the development of civil society and deprive Hong
Kong's people of their basic human rights.
Third, the Article 23 legislation
will criminalise free speech. Organisations representing journalists have
expressed their deep concern about this threat to their ability to carry out
their responsibilities as journalists, especially regarding the offences of
sedition and the theft of state secrets. We worry that, if this bill becomes law,
an indirect form of censorship will be imposed on the media which will damage
freedom of speech and expression in the community.
In the bill, the government has not
provided a rationale for protecting information relating to Hong Kong's affairs
which are within the purview of the central authorities.
From the manner in which government
officials in China initially handled the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)
crisis, it is very clear that their lack of transparency and accountability has
seriously harmed people's health on the mainland as well as that of the global
community. This should be an important lesson for the HKSAR government as well.
Fourth, we worry that the proposed
Section 8A(3) of the Societies Ordinance, which provides for a certificate to
be conclusive proof that a mainland organisation has been proscribed on the
mainland by the central authorities in accordance with national law on the
grounds that it endangers national security, will import into Hong Kong the
definition of national security as established on the mainland. This law
thereby absolves the HKSAR government from having either any responsibility or
authority over such matters because under the bill the definition of "national
security" in Hong Kong will be determined in Beijing. Currently, Falun
Gong and some unregistered Christian communities are banned in mainland China
under the "evil cult" law. However, if the mainland authorities also
ban Falun Gong and the unregistered Christian communities under national
security laws, then they would also be banned in Hong Kong.
Fifth, as to the proposed power
given to the police to conduct search-and-seizure operations without
court-ordered warrants for evidence related to the offences of treason,
subversion, sedition, secession and the handling of seditious publications
under Section 18B of the Crimes Ordinance, many people have already expressed
their apprehensions surrounding this expansion of police power for
investigative purposes—worries that we too share as it can easily lead to an
abuse of power by the police.
Lastly, as a Christian organisation,
our ecumenical fellowship goes beyond national boundaries. In the past, we have
been free to relate to any religious community without considering their
political stance. However, if the national security legislation in the bill
before Legco is passed, we might have to worry whether we can continue to
maintain normal relationships with the churches in Taiwan, for instance.
Although government officials have
tried to reassure the public that Falun Gong practitioners, supporters of
Taiwan, etc., are not the targets of this legislation and that their activities
and organisations will not be affected, concerns and worries still continue to
exist. This anxiety is primarily because Hong Kong does not have a fully
functioning democratic system which can truly represent the interests of the
people. Moreover, the one-party State on the mainland, whose national security
this legislation seeks to protect, does not have a good human rights record and
has a history of repressing its own people through the use of similarly vague
and broad national security legislation as that being advocated by the HKSAR
government.
From the above evidence, it is quite
clear that, if the HKSAR government insists on proceeding with this legislation
without taking seriously the fear and objections of the people, the law will
only serve the purpose of creating tension within the community and will
indicate an intention to silence dissenting voices in order to inhibit the
participation of Hong Kong's people in decision-making and debate relating to
policies that affect them, which will, of course, be to the advantage of the
authorities.
While the current SARS crisis has captured
the attention of the community, what Hong Kong's people want from our
government is to provide adequate protection for their health and security but
not to make use of the community's diverted attention to rapidly enact this
national security legislation by July 2003.
As Christians, we believe that
freedom of expression, particularly freedom of thought, belief, conscience and
speech, are basic human rights. We cannot sacrifice these values in the name of
protecting "national security." In particular, the freedom of
religious belief of Christians flows from our freedom of conscience, which may
cause us to hold views that oppose those of the government. Moreover,
one of the most valuable aspects of Christian communities is the worldwide
fellowship which springs from our belief that all members of humanity are part
of God's family. Following this principle, and the lack of a democratic and
representational political system in Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Christian
Institute cannot support the HKSAR government's National Security (Legislative
Provisions) Bill 2003. Instead, we propose that the HKSAR government amend the
existing draconian laws which violate people's human rights and freedom, such
as the Public Order Ordinance. In this way, the community will have more
confidence that the HKSAR government truly wants to create an open and
accountable administration, one that will serve the people of Hong Kong and
protect their rights. We cannot be the "masters of our own house" as
announced by Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa at the time of the handover in 1997
when we must question the intentions of our government and its sincerity in
defending our freedoms.
Rose Wu
Director
Hong Kong
Christian Institute
11 Mongkok
Road, 10/F
Kowloon
Telephone:
2398-1699
Fax: 2787-
4765
E-mail
Address: hkci@netvigator.com
Web Site:
http://www.hkci.org.hk