Date: Friday 9 July 2004
Subj: Hong Kong: Government steals Church influence.
To: World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty News & Analysis
From: WEA RLC Principal Researcher and Writer, Elizabeth Kendal.
----------------------------------------------
HONG KONG: GOVERNMENT STEALS CHURCH INFLUENCE
----------------------------------------------
On Tuesday 6 July, the South China Morning Post (SCMP) reported that Christian educators in Hong Kong were praying for a miracle. The Education (Amendment) Bill 2002 was due to come before Parliament on 7 July. The SCMP reports, "If it is passed, this Bill will effectively give the Beijing-backed government increased control of Hong Kong's multitudes of Church-owned and run schools. 'We know that the bill will pass with so many pro-government legislators sitting on Legco [Legislative Council],' Bishop Zen said. [Bishop Zen Ze-kiun, Catholic Bishop of Hong Kong.] 'What we are praying for is a miracle. We appeal to the Liberal Party to vote according to their conscience, like they did last time to vote down Article 23'."
On the evening of 6 July, the Catholic Church held a candlelight vigil outside the Legislative Council to pray for that miracle. One Christian leader in Hong Kong explains, "Out of a population of 7 million only 10 percent are members of the Church. But at the same time 50 percent of all schools and 50 percent of all social service programs are run by the Church so there is a great influence especially as the church schools are of very high standard and have
the best reputation. The government wants to change the school system so the government can have more influence."
AsiaNews confirms this, "The Hong Kong [Catholic] diocese runs about 300 elementary schools, high schools and colleges throughout the territory. Diocesan schools are considered to be the top-rated on the island. Hong Kong’s most well known cultural, political and financial leaders have all been educated at these Catholic schools. Hence some experts have said the government move is aimed at halting the Catholic Church’s influence over Hong Kong." (Link 1)
EDUCATION AMENDMENT BILL 2002
The Education Amendment Bill 2002 went before parliament on 8 July. After thirteen hours of "heated debate", the highly controversial bill was passed, 29 votes in favour, 21 votes against. (Link 2)
The Education Amendment Bill 2002 requires schools to set up Incorporated Management Committees (IMCs), separate legal entities that must include elected teacher and parent representatives, by 2012. Presently, most school management committees are formed by members directly appointed by the School Sponsoring Bodies (SSB). The Bill will reduce the central control and decision making power of the School Sponsoring Bodies. The IMCs will be responsible for evaluating teachers and teaching methods as well as the overall quality and structure of schools themselves. Most seriously, the IMCs will not be obliged to respect the philosophy and mission of the sponsoring bodies.
AsiaNews reports, "According to Bishop Zen and various other education leaders in Hong Kong, the government measure aims to remove SSB authority and strike down its educational proposals and programs. At the same time, they say, the new legislation strengthens government control over schools. In Zen's letter to Legco, the bishop states that government authority will be increased "through decentralizing the School Sponsoring Bodies and radically altering an effective educational system that has gained international admiration". (Link 1)
According to a 9 July SCMP report, "Under the bill, the Education and Manpower Bureau also has the right to appoint members to the committee if it finds problems with the management of a school."
Bishop Zen comments, "Once the bill is passed, there are only two options - to set up an Incorporated Management Committee, or to give over our schools to the government. ... the reason for the government to pass the bill is control [over schools]." (SCMP 6 July)
CHURCHES CONSIDER LEGAL ACTION
AsiaNews reported on 6 July that Bishop Zen was threatening to file a lawsuit against the government for breaching the Basic Law if the Bill were passed. "The Church is set to sue the government because according to Basic Law article 141, religious organisations may continue to run schools according to their previous practices. We must sue the government over this blatant violation." (Link 3)
According to the SCMP 9 July report, "The Anglican church's sponsoring board, the Sheng Kung Hui, said it would not adopt the bill and might take legal action." Timothy Ha Wing-ho, education secretary of the body, is quoted as commenting, "We have established a successful partnership between schools and parents for 150 years."
Education authorities are unmoved by the Church's threat to sue. Department of Justice deputy law draftsman Gilbert Mo Sik-keung responded by pointing out that article 136 of the Basic Law also stipulated that the SAR [Special Administrative Region, i.e. Hong Kong] government "shall, on its own, formulate policies on the development and improvement of education, including policies regarding the educational system and its administration, the language of instruction, the allocation of funds, the examination system, the system of academic awards and the recognition of educational qualifications". Mo said the intention of the Basic Law's article 141 does not necessarily mean any change or reform in the education system must be prohibited. (Link 4)
AsiaNews reports (9 July), "Many School Sponsoring Bodies, particularly Christian SSBs (Catholic, Anglican, and Methodist), have repeatedly said that existing legal practices and school policies offer sufficient guarantee for transparency and participation in school management. Many Catholic educators along with Bishop Zen believe that the purpose of the Bill is to reduce the autonomy of the SBs thus threatening Catholic education itself." (Link 5)
- Elizabeth Kendal
Links
1) 22 May 2004 HONG KONG – CHINA
Government tries to push Church out of schools
Bishop Joseph Zen writes a letter to Hong Kong’s Parliament
http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=838
2) School reform bill passed after heated debate
Eddie Luk. 9 July 2004
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-07/09/content_346863.htm
3) 6 July 2004 HONG KONG – CHINA
Catholic Church set to sue the government over education
The Education Bill breaches the Basic Law and Church freedom
http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=1099
4) Legal threat of church dismissed
Eddie Luk. 7 July 2004
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-07/07/content_346123.htm
5) 8 July, 2004 HONG KONG – CHINA
New Education Bill Adopted
http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=1115
Showing posts with label Hong Kong. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hong Kong. Show all posts
Friday, July 9, 2004
Monday, February 17, 2003
Hong Kong: Judging by Beijing's standards.
Date: Monday 17 February 2003
Subj: Hong Kong: Judging by Beijing's standards.
To: World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty E-mail Conference
From: Elizabeth Kendal, Conference Moderator
In September 2002, the Hong Kong government signalled it would move towards enacting controversial anti-subversion legislation. For a full report on the gradual erosion of freedom in Hong Kong, see a previous WEA RLC report entitled: "Tracking freedom in Hong Kong" 19 September 2002.
----------------------------
UNVEILING ARTICLE 23
The high level of anxiety over the anti-subversion law known as Article 23, comes from the fact that it is the National People's Congress in Beijing that has the final word on all matters pertaining to constitutional issues and the interpretation of Basic Law in Hong Kong. Article 23 therefore puts Hong Kong's autonomy under threat by opening a door through which mainland China's legal principles can be imported into Hong Kong. This seriously threatens the "one country, two systems" structure. Most political analysts believe that religious and pro-democracy or rights groups will be most at risk from the anti-subversion legislation.
After five months of consultations, deliberations and debates, the government of Hong Kong has now released their blue bill on Article 23. The security secretary of Hong Kong administration, Regina Ip, said the proposed bill would be introduced into the legislative council before the end of this month. The Hong Kong government wants the legislation passed by July 2003.
BANNED IN BEIJING - BANNED IN HONG KONG
The most controversial element of the legislation is the provision that decrees the banning of any Hong Kong group that receives funds, direction or leadership from a group that is outlawed by Beijing. Article 23 will therefore threaten all religious groups outlawed in mainland China.
On Friday 14 February 2003, the South China Morning Post published an analysis by Chris Yeung entitled, "Now we will have a clearer picture of the price to pay for upholding national security." Yeung expressed the fear that the "one country, two systems" structure is under threat.
"Despite the improvements to the original proposals, the anti-subversion bill announced yesterday (13 Feb) has demonstrated the impossible task of reconciling conflicts between safeguarding national security and preserving civil liberties.
"As a senior official admitted privately, it is politically impossible for the SAR (Special Autonomous Region - HK) not to act over a local group if it has clear links with one that is outlawed across the border.
"Regardless of efforts to avoid abuses of such power in Hong Kong, the political imperative of providing a system to trigger the process of banning organisations will blur the two systems."
BEHIND CLOSED DOORS
On 15 February, South China Morning Post published an article entitled, "New rule allowing closed-door court appeals attacked," by Jimmy Cheung. According to this article, when appeals are brought by organisations that have been banned under the proposed national security laws, those appeals may go ahead behind closed doors in the absence of group leaders and their legal representatives.
Prominent Hong Kong lawyers are protesting that this would actually breach the Basic Law, in particular Article 35, which guarantees the right to representation before the courts.
"The blue bill made public on Thursday allows such appeals to be taken to court, rather than the special tribunals that were originally proposed. But it also empowers the chief justice to make rules that provide for some cases to be held behind closed doors, and for those bringing the appeal to be barred from the hearing if necessary. These rules could also see the legal representatives of the organisations banned from the court."
South China Morning Post (SCMP) quoted former chairman of the Bar Association, Alan Leong Kah-kit, as saying "One can't even have access to what evidence the prosecution side has given. This is something that Hong Kong has never heard of."
On 16 October 2002 the SCMP quoted Leong as saying "This (Article 23) is a very dangerous hole drilled in the wall that separates the two systems." (SCMP. "Lawyers identify deep flaws in Article 23." By Cliff Buddle. 16 Oct 2002)
BISHOP ZEN
As a bishop in a church that is banned in mainland China, Hong Kong's Catholic Bishop Joseph Zen Ze-kiun is a vocal opponent of Article 23. He has labelled it "not acceptable" and "undemocratic".
In his Christmas message, Bishop Zen said, "We are living through a difficult time in our history. Prosperity seems to be a distant memory. Let us not surrender to the situation but work together to improve it. By sharing our difficulties they become smaller; by sharing our joy, it grows."
"An unjust situation made stable by oppressive structures is not peace but a state of violence. The prophets of God try to awaken the conscience of people by destroying false peace in order to correct an unjust situation." (SCMP "Bishop Zen warns of tough times ahead." 24 Dec 2002)
- Elizabeth Kendal
Articles
CNN "HK unveils controversial security law." 13 Feb 2003
http://asia.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/02/13/hk.law.reut/index.
html
"Bill targets subversives." By Bill Spencer in Hong Kong 15 Feb 2003
http://theage.com.au/text/articles/2003/02/14/1044927798161.htm
Subj: Hong Kong: Judging by Beijing's standards.
To: World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty E-mail Conference
From: Elizabeth Kendal, Conference Moderator
In September 2002, the Hong Kong government signalled it would move towards enacting controversial anti-subversion legislation. For a full report on the gradual erosion of freedom in Hong Kong, see a previous WEA RLC report entitled: "Tracking freedom in Hong Kong" 19 September 2002.
----------------------------
UNVEILING ARTICLE 23
The high level of anxiety over the anti-subversion law known as Article 23, comes from the fact that it is the National People's Congress in Beijing that has the final word on all matters pertaining to constitutional issues and the interpretation of Basic Law in Hong Kong. Article 23 therefore puts Hong Kong's autonomy under threat by opening a door through which mainland China's legal principles can be imported into Hong Kong. This seriously threatens the "one country, two systems" structure. Most political analysts believe that religious and pro-democracy or rights groups will be most at risk from the anti-subversion legislation.
After five months of consultations, deliberations and debates, the government of Hong Kong has now released their blue bill on Article 23. The security secretary of Hong Kong administration, Regina Ip, said the proposed bill would be introduced into the legislative council before the end of this month. The Hong Kong government wants the legislation passed by July 2003.
BANNED IN BEIJING - BANNED IN HONG KONG
The most controversial element of the legislation is the provision that decrees the banning of any Hong Kong group that receives funds, direction or leadership from a group that is outlawed by Beijing. Article 23 will therefore threaten all religious groups outlawed in mainland China.
On Friday 14 February 2003, the South China Morning Post published an analysis by Chris Yeung entitled, "Now we will have a clearer picture of the price to pay for upholding national security." Yeung expressed the fear that the "one country, two systems" structure is under threat.
"Despite the improvements to the original proposals, the anti-subversion bill announced yesterday (13 Feb) has demonstrated the impossible task of reconciling conflicts between safeguarding national security and preserving civil liberties.
"As a senior official admitted privately, it is politically impossible for the SAR (Special Autonomous Region - HK) not to act over a local group if it has clear links with one that is outlawed across the border.
"Regardless of efforts to avoid abuses of such power in Hong Kong, the political imperative of providing a system to trigger the process of banning organisations will blur the two systems."
BEHIND CLOSED DOORS
On 15 February, South China Morning Post published an article entitled, "New rule allowing closed-door court appeals attacked," by Jimmy Cheung. According to this article, when appeals are brought by organisations that have been banned under the proposed national security laws, those appeals may go ahead behind closed doors in the absence of group leaders and their legal representatives.
Prominent Hong Kong lawyers are protesting that this would actually breach the Basic Law, in particular Article 35, which guarantees the right to representation before the courts.
"The blue bill made public on Thursday allows such appeals to be taken to court, rather than the special tribunals that were originally proposed. But it also empowers the chief justice to make rules that provide for some cases to be held behind closed doors, and for those bringing the appeal to be barred from the hearing if necessary. These rules could also see the legal representatives of the organisations banned from the court."
South China Morning Post (SCMP) quoted former chairman of the Bar Association, Alan Leong Kah-kit, as saying "One can't even have access to what evidence the prosecution side has given. This is something that Hong Kong has never heard of."
On 16 October 2002 the SCMP quoted Leong as saying "This (Article 23) is a very dangerous hole drilled in the wall that separates the two systems." (SCMP. "Lawyers identify deep flaws in Article 23." By Cliff Buddle. 16 Oct 2002)
BISHOP ZEN
As a bishop in a church that is banned in mainland China, Hong Kong's Catholic Bishop Joseph Zen Ze-kiun is a vocal opponent of Article 23. He has labelled it "not acceptable" and "undemocratic".
In his Christmas message, Bishop Zen said, "We are living through a difficult time in our history. Prosperity seems to be a distant memory. Let us not surrender to the situation but work together to improve it. By sharing our difficulties they become smaller; by sharing our joy, it grows."
"An unjust situation made stable by oppressive structures is not peace but a state of violence. The prophets of God try to awaken the conscience of people by destroying false peace in order to correct an unjust situation." (SCMP "Bishop Zen warns of tough times ahead." 24 Dec 2002)
- Elizabeth Kendal
Articles
CNN "HK unveils controversial security law." 13 Feb 2003
http://asia.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/02/13/hk.law.reut/index.
html
"Bill targets subversives." By Bill Spencer in Hong Kong 15 Feb 2003
http://theage.com.au/text/articles/2003/02/14/1044927798161.htm
Thursday, September 19, 2002
Tracking freedom in Hong Kong.
Date: Thursday 19 September 2002
Subj: Tracking freedom in Hong Kong.
To: World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty E-mail Conference
From: Elizabeth Kendal, Conference Moderator
The eroding of freedom in Hong Kong has been done so gently and slowly that it has scarcely attracted any attention, like a burglar tiptoeing so quietly that he manages to steal without setting off any alarm bells. However, Beijing's insistence that Hong Kong start enacting controversial anti-subversion legislation just might trigger the sensors, especially when we understand that it is China's definition of subversion that will stand, as it is China's National People's Congress in Beijing that has the final word on all matters pertaining to interpretation of Basic Law in Hong Kong.
-----------------------------------------------
TRACKING FREEDOM IN HONG KONG
In 1985, Britain and China ratified the Sino-British Joint Declaration. Under its terms, China would regain sovereignty over Hong Kong on 1 July 1997 and Hong Kong would become a Special Administrative Region (SAR) with its economic and social systems remaining unchanged for 50 years.
In 1995 all seats in the Legislative Council were declared vacant and democratic elections were held. Pro-China parties polled poorly, winning only 16 of the 60 seats, while candidates in favour of increasing openness and democracy won 26 seats and pro-business, politically neutral candidates won those remaining. China was so incensed that they threatened to dissolve the Legislative Council after 1997, even though that would be a clear violation of the 1985 Sino-British Joint Declaration.
Hong Kong passed from British to Chinese hands on 30 June 1997 and the Chinese immediately dissolved the Legislative Council and replaced it with a handpicked body.
In 1999 Hong Kong's Court of Final Appeal acknowledged the primacy of China's National People's Congress in Beijing as having the final word on all matters pertaining to constitutional issues and interpretation of Basic law.
On 11 July 2002 a bill was passed that gave Beijing the power to dismiss Hong Kong's leader. The BBC reported, "Under the proposal approved by Hong Kong's legislature on Wednesday (11/7/01), an 800-person committee will choose Hong Kong's next leader - but Beijing can fire the person."
"Critics say the law - proposed by the government - demolishes a crucial pillar of the autonomy the territory was promised when it was returned to China four years ago. The controversy over the bill is just the latest row that has raised fears that Hong Kong's autonomy is slowly being chipped away.
"The government is reportedly considering following China's example by banning the Falun Gong spiritual movement. However, Mr Tung said he told Mr Bush the territory would continue to tolerate a broad range of religious expression. 'Freedom of the press and religion are alive and kicking and doing well,' said Mr Tung. 'Four years since the return of Hong Kong, one country-two systems is everyday reality'." ("HK leader says freedom is safe" BBC 12 July 2001)
However, during 2002, journalists, Falun Gong and activists such as Harry Wu have been restricted, harassed, detained and deported. As the BBC notes, "A clear message is being sent - if Beijing doesn't like you, you will find it hard to get into Hong Kong." (See Link 1 - "Fears for Hong Kong's freedom" BBC 1 July 2002)
ENACTING THE ANTI-SUBVERSION LAW
An article entitled "Hong Kong signals it could soon enact anti-subversion law" (AFP 13 Sept) states: "The Hong Kong government has signalled it could soon move to enact controversial anti-subversion legislation it has been obliged to introduce since returning to Chinese rule five years ago.
"Justice Secretary Elsie Leung told reporters 'it is about time' to enact the law, which would punish offences against the state. Her remarks follow reports that a consultation paper on the issue would be issued as early as next month.
"Senior Chinese officials led by Vice Premier Qian Qichen, who is responsible for Hong Kong affairs, have told the territory to enact the subversion law as soon as possible.
"But some legislators fear such laws could run counter to Hong Kong's policies on freedom of speech and have argued that prohibition of treason and subversion are covered by existing legislation." (Full article - see link 2).
The Anti-subversion law in Article 23 of the Basic Law requires Hong Kong to legislate against treason, sedition, secession and subversion.
The South China Morning Post (SCMP) reported the same story under the headline, "Groups meet to share views on proposed subversion law". Law Yuk-kai, director of Human Rights Monitor, is quoted as saying, "It will be a serious test of the willingness of the government to maintain Hong Kong as a tolerant and free society. Should the administration seek to interfere with Hong Kong's freedom of expression, freedom of information and academic freedom through such a law, it will fundamentally change the nature of Hong Kong's society."
"He (Mr. Law) said Human Rights Monitor and the Hong Kong Christian Institute had jointly called today's (Friday 13 Sept) meeting with NGOs including green groups, trade unions, religious groups and student organisations." The non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are meeting together to decide on a joint response. ("Groups meet to share views on proposed subversion law" by Angela Li, SCMP 13 Sept 2002).
Chinese authorities have denied that the law would affect freedom of expression in Hong Kong. However Mr. Law believes there is a need to take action. "'With the draconian law in place, non-governmental organisations which have dissenting voices would be banned gradually,' he said."
Pro-democracy legislators are seeking to widen public understanding of issues concerning the anti-subversion law. According to the SCMP, "They hope to provide campaigners against the proposed laws with substance to back up their slogans."
"Margaret Ng Ngoi-yee, non-affiliated legislator representing the legal sector, is due to release to the media today (19/9) an information pack on Article 23 legislation. Another pro-democracy legislator, Cyd Ho Sau-lan, of the Frontier, plans to launch a Web site on Article 23 legislation in a fortnight's time." ("Legislators in push to broaden public knowledge of Article 23" by Angela Li and Jimmy Cheung, SCMP, 19 Sept 2002).
The NGOs will meet again on Monday 23 September to finalise the action they will take. ("NGOs weigh subversion law action" by May Sin-Mi Ho, SCMP 18 Sept 2002).
UPDATE: Massive protests led to the law being shelved -- for the time being.
- Elizabeth Kendal
Links
1) "Fears for Hong Kong's freedom" By Damian Grammaticas,
BBC Hong Kong correspondent 1 July 2002.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2077589.stm
2) "Hong Kong signals it could soon enact anti-subversion law"
AFP 13 Sept 2002
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/020913/1/32qns.html
Subj: Tracking freedom in Hong Kong.
To: World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty E-mail Conference
From: Elizabeth Kendal, Conference Moderator
The eroding of freedom in Hong Kong has been done so gently and slowly that it has scarcely attracted any attention, like a burglar tiptoeing so quietly that he manages to steal without setting off any alarm bells. However, Beijing's insistence that Hong Kong start enacting controversial anti-subversion legislation just might trigger the sensors, especially when we understand that it is China's definition of subversion that will stand, as it is China's National People's Congress in Beijing that has the final word on all matters pertaining to interpretation of Basic Law in Hong Kong.
-----------------------------------------------
TRACKING FREEDOM IN HONG KONG
In 1985, Britain and China ratified the Sino-British Joint Declaration. Under its terms, China would regain sovereignty over Hong Kong on 1 July 1997 and Hong Kong would become a Special Administrative Region (SAR) with its economic and social systems remaining unchanged for 50 years.
In 1995 all seats in the Legislative Council were declared vacant and democratic elections were held. Pro-China parties polled poorly, winning only 16 of the 60 seats, while candidates in favour of increasing openness and democracy won 26 seats and pro-business, politically neutral candidates won those remaining. China was so incensed that they threatened to dissolve the Legislative Council after 1997, even though that would be a clear violation of the 1985 Sino-British Joint Declaration.
Hong Kong passed from British to Chinese hands on 30 June 1997 and the Chinese immediately dissolved the Legislative Council and replaced it with a handpicked body.
In 1999 Hong Kong's Court of Final Appeal acknowledged the primacy of China's National People's Congress in Beijing as having the final word on all matters pertaining to constitutional issues and interpretation of Basic law.
On 11 July 2002 a bill was passed that gave Beijing the power to dismiss Hong Kong's leader. The BBC reported, "Under the proposal approved by Hong Kong's legislature on Wednesday (11/7/01), an 800-person committee will choose Hong Kong's next leader - but Beijing can fire the person."
"Critics say the law - proposed by the government - demolishes a crucial pillar of the autonomy the territory was promised when it was returned to China four years ago. The controversy over the bill is just the latest row that has raised fears that Hong Kong's autonomy is slowly being chipped away.
"The government is reportedly considering following China's example by banning the Falun Gong spiritual movement. However, Mr Tung said he told Mr Bush the territory would continue to tolerate a broad range of religious expression. 'Freedom of the press and religion are alive and kicking and doing well,' said Mr Tung. 'Four years since the return of Hong Kong, one country-two systems is everyday reality'." ("HK leader says freedom is safe" BBC 12 July 2001)
However, during 2002, journalists, Falun Gong and activists such as Harry Wu have been restricted, harassed, detained and deported. As the BBC notes, "A clear message is being sent - if Beijing doesn't like you, you will find it hard to get into Hong Kong." (See Link 1 - "Fears for Hong Kong's freedom" BBC 1 July 2002)
ENACTING THE ANTI-SUBVERSION LAW
An article entitled "Hong Kong signals it could soon enact anti-subversion law" (AFP 13 Sept) states: "The Hong Kong government has signalled it could soon move to enact controversial anti-subversion legislation it has been obliged to introduce since returning to Chinese rule five years ago.
"Justice Secretary Elsie Leung told reporters 'it is about time' to enact the law, which would punish offences against the state. Her remarks follow reports that a consultation paper on the issue would be issued as early as next month.
"Senior Chinese officials led by Vice Premier Qian Qichen, who is responsible for Hong Kong affairs, have told the territory to enact the subversion law as soon as possible.
"But some legislators fear such laws could run counter to Hong Kong's policies on freedom of speech and have argued that prohibition of treason and subversion are covered by existing legislation." (Full article - see link 2).
The Anti-subversion law in Article 23 of the Basic Law requires Hong Kong to legislate against treason, sedition, secession and subversion.
The South China Morning Post (SCMP) reported the same story under the headline, "Groups meet to share views on proposed subversion law". Law Yuk-kai, director of Human Rights Monitor, is quoted as saying, "It will be a serious test of the willingness of the government to maintain Hong Kong as a tolerant and free society. Should the administration seek to interfere with Hong Kong's freedom of expression, freedom of information and academic freedom through such a law, it will fundamentally change the nature of Hong Kong's society."
"He (Mr. Law) said Human Rights Monitor and the Hong Kong Christian Institute had jointly called today's (Friday 13 Sept) meeting with NGOs including green groups, trade unions, religious groups and student organisations." The non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are meeting together to decide on a joint response. ("Groups meet to share views on proposed subversion law" by Angela Li, SCMP 13 Sept 2002).
Chinese authorities have denied that the law would affect freedom of expression in Hong Kong. However Mr. Law believes there is a need to take action. "'With the draconian law in place, non-governmental organisations which have dissenting voices would be banned gradually,' he said."
Pro-democracy legislators are seeking to widen public understanding of issues concerning the anti-subversion law. According to the SCMP, "They hope to provide campaigners against the proposed laws with substance to back up their slogans."
"Margaret Ng Ngoi-yee, non-affiliated legislator representing the legal sector, is due to release to the media today (19/9) an information pack on Article 23 legislation. Another pro-democracy legislator, Cyd Ho Sau-lan, of the Frontier, plans to launch a Web site on Article 23 legislation in a fortnight's time." ("Legislators in push to broaden public knowledge of Article 23" by Angela Li and Jimmy Cheung, SCMP, 19 Sept 2002).
The NGOs will meet again on Monday 23 September to finalise the action they will take. ("NGOs weigh subversion law action" by May Sin-Mi Ho, SCMP 18 Sept 2002).
UPDATE: Massive protests led to the law being shelved -- for the time being.
- Elizabeth Kendal
Links
1) "Fears for Hong Kong's freedom" By Damian Grammaticas,
BBC Hong Kong correspondent 1 July 2002.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2077589.stm
2) "Hong Kong signals it could soon enact anti-subversion law"
AFP 13 Sept 2002
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/020913/1/32qns.html