Hongkongers have no reason to oppose Article 23, says Law Society council member
Lam San-keung says Hong Kong's laws are inadequate to safeguard us from the security threat of some in the city colluding with external forces
The Occupy Central movement caused harm and disruption to society. It did, however, also prove that we have one of the finest police forces in the world, and that the majority of protesters in Hong Kong still respect the law.
Yet another consequence of the movement has been the severe erosion of the mainland's trust in some people from the pan-democratic camp (especially those in the legal profession). This erosion of trust was not a result of their demand for freedom and democracy but, rather, due to their attempt or intention to associate with external forces to subvert the country and separate Hong Kong from China.
Most people in Hong Kong have seen that China is growing stronger, on the way to again becoming a great power. This is undoubtedly a matter of pride for every Chinese. President Xi Jinping will lead China to realise the "Chinese dream" and the rule of law. This is very encouraging.
The disruption of national security by external forces is the biggest hurdle to the realisation of China's renaissance. Every Chinese, including the people of Hong Kong, should know how China and its people have been exploited and impoverished by the Western powers over the past few centuries. It is still happening today: the French magazine used the racist term "yellow peril" on the cover of a recent issue, right after the tragedy.
Occupy Central brought the same concern about external forces. Yet, some advocates of the movement from the legal profession claim Hong Kong's existing laws provide adequate protection on national security and the legislation of Article 23 is therefore unnecessary. In my view, Occupy Central provides a good opportunity to review our laws and decide whether they do provide adequate safeguards.
We have also seen some prima facie evidence in newspapers of the alleged association between the instigators and supporters of Occupy Central and external forces. Hong Kong citizens have a right to know whether these occupiers fought purely on ideological grounds, or if they acted, or were being used, to subvert the nation and bring chaos to China again, as has happened in Iraq, Egypt and Libya.
Some supporters of Occupy Central from the legal profession have made a public statement that the existing set of laws are sufficient to prevent the occurrence of such incidents. I would invite them to suggest which provision or provisions of the law would achieve that purpose, so the Department of Justice and the legal profession can consider it.
The Department of Justice could then rely on such laws to prosecute suspected Occupy Central supporters.
The courts will ultimately be able to tell us whether the existing laws are relevant and can provide adequate protection on national security, and also whether some of the Occupy Central supporters are innocent, which perhaps would once again show the superiority of the rule of law in Hong Kong.
Otherwise, what reason could be used to oppose the legislation of Article 23 for national security?
