Three weeks after the consultation paper on the implementation of Article 23 of the Basic Law was released, numerous queries have been raised by critics over the broad sweep of the proposed legislation on treason, sedition, secession, subversion and the theft of state secrets.
Time and again, officials have assured that there is no need for anybody to worry about falling prey to the eventual legislation as it will have to comply with various safeguards such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Our independent judiciary will also guard against wrongful convictions, they say.
While some key worries are founded on matters of principle, such as subversion being a concept foreign to common law, many reservations spring from the lack of a draft bill that would have enabled the public to know exactly how the offences will be framed.
It is thus disappointing that officials remain opposed to publishing a white bill for further consultation. Presumably, many of the worries will go away if the precise wording of the offences become known.
Instead, they argue that a blue bill, one that is formally introduced to the Legislative Council, will suffice, as amendments can be made during the legislative process.
But as anyone familiar with the process knows, the room for making substantial amendments to a blue bill is limited. The pressure on officials and legislators to put it through is also great, because the process will have to start all over again if it fails to pass within one legislative session.
