Tens of thousands of people are expected to take to the streets later today in protest against the legislation of Article 23. But just how much do you know about this controversial issue? Here Young Post will give you a brief lowdown on the essential facts and what the fuss is all about. The government has two responsibilities: (1) to enact security laws to protect national security and (2) to comply with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as applied to Hong Kong. Why do we need Basic Law Article 23? 'All countries need laws to protect their sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and national security,' says Solicitor-General Bob Allcock. 'While Hong Kong's existing laws cover many of the activities referred to in Article 23, some of them are outdated. The law of treason, for example, protects the queen. The law on sedition is too broad. 'The proposed bill will update and restrict the offences so that treason will relate only to external threats to the nation, secession will deal only with threats to split the country and subversion will deal with internal threats to the People's Republic of China government and constitution.' Concerns raised by various professional groups: Will press freedom and other liberties be threatened? 'The legislation would inhibit the functioning of the local, regional and international press in Hong Kong and would threaten the legitimate expression of free speech, assembly, a free press and the other liberties that characterise Hong Kong's way of life,' the Society of Publishers in Asia says. Even after the changes to the bill, it 'still represents a real threat to the rights and freedoms of Hong Kong residents', according to the Hong Kong Bar Association. The bill goes beyond what is strictly required by Article 23 of the Basic Law and those parts that the bill must include are 'over-broad'. 'Enforcement may only directly affect a very small proportion of the population but the effect of enforcement action will be felt by the majority. Freedom of political expression will be curbed and the freedom to seek information through the media will be limited.' Imprecise language According to the Hong Kong Journalists Association, the description of sedition and seditious-publications offences use 'vague and ambiguous terms such as 'violent public disorder' and 'stability'. The bill provides no clarification of what such terms mean. Offences of treason, subversion and secession are also defined in broad and vague terms. 'Such vague and ill-defined words and phrases have made the proposed offences of sedition and handling seditious publications all-encompass-ing,' says the association. 'They fail to meet the basic requirements of criminal legislation - that provisions must be narrowly and precisely drawn.' The hidden dangers of the sedition law Against the tide of history: the bill turns back the clock by giving new life to sedition offences which basically vanished half century ago. History clearly shows that sedition has almost always been a politicised offence, its key purpose being to discourage and suppress dissenting political expression. While the introduction of the idea of 'seditious publications' is a clear threat to freedom to publish and read, says the International Publishers Association (IPA). It says the definition of seditious publication is so vague that authors, publishers, booksellers and librarians could never be certain what was seditious and what was not. The clause could also cover the internet. Other aspects of the proposed bill that raise concern: Banning organisations According to the Society of Publishers in Asia, any decision to ban an organisation should be made only by the Hong Kong courts and be independent of decisions made by the mainland authorities. It is not acceptable for the secretary for security to have the power to make rules for appeals against the banning of a group on national security grounds. Lack of public consultation According to the Hong Kong Journalists Association, the Legislative Council set up a bills committee in March 2003 and decided to hold just two meetings to hear public views. Under pressure, it allowed two more sessions - attracting more than 50 mainly pro-democracy organisations. Each group was given just five minutes to present its case. The debate was poorly covered in newspapers because of the Sars crisis, but the government refused to defer the debate. Compiled by Paul Paskewitz, who obtained the above information from the following sources: http://www.basiclaw23.gov.hk/South China Morning Post International Publishers Association (IPA) Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA) The Hong Kong Bar Association What does Article 23 say? The purpose of the proposed bill is to prevent the following acts: treason, secession, subversion, sedition and theft of state screts. Treason: helping China's enemies while China is at war; Secession: the use of force or other illegal means to split or destabilise the country; Subversion: the use of force or other illegal means to weaken or overthrow the government; Sedition: encouraging others to engage in treason, secession or subversion, or any violent act that would seriously endanger stability in the country; Theft of state secrets: stealing secret government information (affairs which are the responsibility of the central government) through hacking, theft, robbery, burglary or bribery
