bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

helpersCheckIsPostiesArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

moreOnThisArticles

urlAlias

commentCount

sponsorType

authorLocations

authors

paywallTypes

corrections

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

socialHeadline

headline

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

publishedDate

additionalInfoBoxes

images

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

createdDate

sponsor

factSheets

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

copyrighted

customTimezone

liveContents

Chris Yeung

TOP DEMOCRAT Martin Lee Chu-ming has been lambasted by pro-Beijing figures and media for 'bad-mouthing' Hong Kong when in the United States last week to raise concerns over Article 23 legislation. He tells Editor-at-Large Chris Yeung why he believes he has done the right thing.

Q: What are the key messages that you took to the US?

A: I felt it was necessary to tell not just politicians, but officials and also the editorial boards in the US, Britain and Europe how worried Hong Kong people are about the legislation . . . I just went there and told them what I thought.

Q: Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee said your trip had been futile. Do you agree?

A: I don't think it's for me to judge one way or another. I never tell or ask people what to do because it would be too presumptuous. Whether this trip achieved anything, only history can tell. I requested to see the US president, vice-president and secretary of state, but all were not in Washington. If Mrs Ip used that as evidence, she would be right.

Q: Did you notice any drop in interest in HK issues?

A: There was no doubt about that. People told us Hong Kong was not on the political radar screen at all since the handover. The only thing which had been reported was the right of abode and reinterpretation. We were told we had made the right decision to go there and talk about Hong Kong. They said from now Hong Kong would be on their map again.

Q: To what extent do they understand the complexities and technicalities of the issue?

A: We left consultation documents for them to read themselves. Our government office in Washington has been diligent. It anticipated what people we would be meeting and saw them first, assuring them it is a good proposal and human rights would be better than before. We told them that is not the case. Quite a number of freedoms are under threat.

Q: What do you expect foreign governments and newspapers can do?

A: [Foreign governments supported the Joint Declaration because] they were satisfied with the assurances that our way of life would remain unchanged and our freedoms would be preserved. If you look at this document . . . some of the freedoms will go. How can it reconcile with the assurance? Any governments which supported the Joint Declaration would be concerned about any possible infringement on freedoms.

Q: To what extent can they influence the content of the new legislation?

A: It remains to be seen. Article 23 says the SAR shall enact laws on its own in relation to those seven areas of crimes. Anybody can see that it is not a decision of the Hong Kong government because Vice-Premier Qian Qichen said four months ago Hong Kong had not enacted any law on Article 23 and it must do it very soon. The initiative clearly came from Beijing.

Q: Critics say that as a Chinese person, you shouldn't bad-mouth Hong Kong. What's your response?

A: I'm doing it not for myself. I want to protect our freedoms not for my sake. I'm getting old. I will not sit there and do nothing if I know freedoms of people, our children would be affected. I owe it to the people who elected me to office as a legislator to do whatever is in my power to stop this. I would do it by fighting in Hong Kong and outside Hong Kong.

Q: Is there a case not to legislate on Article 23?

A: Sure. It is up to Hong Kong people to decide, first, whether it is the correct time to legislate. If yes, the next question is what should we do and its content. I'm not saying we should never do it. It's obligatory for the government to consult people about the timing. Although the government chose not to consult, we got a resounding 'no'.

Q: Will the results have an impact?

A: If the government is not convinced, it should give us a referendum because it is such an important issue. Let the Hong Kong people decide. Nobody seems to know that by supporting the government, they are actually giving up . . . freedoms. They said: 'Oh, we support, we love the country.'

Q: How likely is it that China will impose a national law if Hong Kong fails to enact a law?

A: It's entirely up to the central government. If we believe it is not the proper time and if the central government respects the Basic Law, they should do nothing. We have done very well without the law for five years. why must we have it now?

Q: If you were the chief executive, could you simply ignore Beijing's demand?

A: If I were the chief executive, I would have gone up to Beijing and said to Mr Qian: 'Please, this is what Article 23 says, it's for the SAR to decide.' If you are sitting in Beijing and you are a Chinese leader, when was the time that you needed such a law the most? It must be July 1997. That day came and went, nothing happened.

Q: How likely is it that Chinese leaders will accept it?

A: It should accept it, as it is what Article 23 says . . . If Beijing doesn't follow the Basic Law, we are in a terrible state.



Conversations with the Post