(HKJA/IFEX) – The following is a joint action signed by seventeen IFEX members, protesting the Hong Kong government’s proposed national security law: To: Secretary of Security, Mrs. Regina Ip, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, People’s Republic of China On 24 September 2002, the Hong Kong government published proposals to implement Article 23 of the Basic […]
(HKJA/IFEX) – The following is a joint action signed by seventeen IFEX members, protesting the Hong Kong government’s proposed national security law:
To: Secretary of Security, Mrs. Regina Ip, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, People’s Republic of China
On 24 September 2002, the Hong Kong government published proposals to implement Article 23 of the Basic Law, with the aim of enacting the relevant legislation by July 2003.
We, the undersigned organisations, express profound concern that these proposals give excessive weight to national security at the expense of civil liberties, especially press freedom and freedom of speech.
Those most seriously affected include all who work with ideas and information. They range from academics to artists to journalists to securities analysts to publishers and distributors of newspapers, books, periodicals and films. The wide net cast by the proposals covers even the words and deeds of a broad range of foreigners with links to Hong Kong, such as the expatriate executives of multinational firms. We believe the existence of such laws is bound to have an intimidating effect, causing people to censor themselves and chilling public debate.
We are deeply concerned that under the proposed Article 23, all permanent residents, including foreign nationals who meet a seven-year Hong Kong residency requirement, could be prosecuted for what they say in and outside of Hong Kong.
In addition, the proposed law’s definition of “seditious publications,” under which those who publish information inciting others to “commit treason, secession or subversion” or “endangering the stability of China and Hong Kong” can be jailed for seven years, is so broad Hong Kong’s university librarians have voiced the worry that much of what is on their library shelves could be deemed seditious.
These provisions would have a chilling effect on all individuals, groups and enterprises engaged in the business of information exchange and thus would violate the spirit of Article 19 of the United Nations’ 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This states that: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
We are deeply concerned that Article 23 gives the Secretary for Security wide authority to ban local and foreign political organisations. In some cases a mere declaration by the Chinese government that an organization endangers China’s national security is sufficient grounds for a ban – with limited possibility of appeal in the Hong Kong courts, thus increasing the possibility of Chinese government intervention in Hong Kong.
We also strongly object to the manner in which the proposals are being implemented. Your government is asking the public to respond to a consultation document which gives only an outline of the prospective legislation. The public can only guess at the actual wording of the legislation and, on this basis, your government is dismissing the concerns of many as being ill-informed. The detailed draft legislation will be revealed in February 2003 when it is presented to the Legislative Council. By then, there would be limited opportunity for substantive debate or counter-proposals.
The main stated purpose of the Basic Law is to be a cornerstone for “one country, two systems,” the concept by which Hong Kong is to retain its way of life distinct from the socialist system of mainland China. Thus the Basic Law stipulates that Hong Kong’s personal freedoms, common-law legal system and market economy should remain unchanged for 50 years beyond 1 July 1997.
Today, five years after the handover, there is no evidence of Hong Kong being a source of threats in any way to national security.
We urge the Hong Kong government to present the draft legislation first to the public for comment. Only after making revisions to reflect such comment should the government present the legislation to the Legislative Council.
We also urge the Hong Kong government to:
– Repeal the offences of sedition and seditious publications.
– Ensure that meaningful safeguards for free expression are incorporated in the new laws, according to the Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information.
– Ensure that prosecution under Article 23 can take place only if there is an intention to incite violence, and there is a direct and immediate connection between the expression and the likelihood or occurrence of violence.
– Ensure that no person is punished for disclosing information in the public interest if the benefits to the public outweigh the harm that disclosure may cause.
Signed,
Hong Kong Journalists Association
ARTICLE 19
Canadian Journalists for Free Expression
Cartoonists Rights Network
Center for Human Rights and Democratic Studies, Nepal
Freedom House
Human Rights Watch
Index on Censorship
Independent Journalism Center – Moldova
International Federation of Journalists
International Press Institute
Media Institute, Kenya
Media Watch, Bangladesh
Norwegian PEN Centre
Pacific Islands News Association
Writers in Prison Committee, International PEN
World Association of Community Radio Broadcasters (AMARC)
