Motion Debate on Enacting Laws to Implement Article 23 of the Basic Law

Madam President, there is no escaping the fact that Article 23 is an emotive topic, and putting it on the statute book always promises to spark intense argument and considerable anxiety among the general public. This is one reason why it was not tabled after the handover.

Hong Kong was journeying into the unknown in July 1997, and no one was quite sure how things would work out. Assurances were not enough. People wanted proof that the promises would be honoured, and there would have been deep and widespread concern if laws on sedition and treason had been enacted at that time.

The past five years have shown that those assurances have been honoured. Hong Kong continues to enjoy its freedoms, protected by common law and guaranteed under its mini-constitution, the Basic Law. Therefore, this is the right time for the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) to do what is legally required of it, namely, to enact laws to protect fundamental interests of the state and protect national security.

Drafting Article 23 now, when everyone is confident of the city's autonomy, and society is safe and stable, is by far the wisest course of action. Laws drafted hastily in response to some crisis or other can be at worst, draconian, and even at best, are never the most moderate. The anti-terrorist laws tabled in the United States after the September 11 terrorist attack are the best examples to illustrate my concern.

Every country has some national security regulations set in place to protect its sovereignty and national safety. These laws are designed and regulated by the central government and local government has no authority to intervene. We should appreciate the opportunity that our own SAR Government has been granted, in allowing it to draft the law on its own.

If our Government is to prohibit acts against national security effectively and efficiently, it must have corresponding legislation and executive power as the basis for act

Madam President, the consultation document outlining the Government's proposal is one which the Liberal Party feels is comprehensive and detailed. So long as the new legislation continues to protect the existing liberties and rights of Hong Kong citizens, life should continue unchanged. It is vitally important that we should contribute to the process of consultation by voicing our concerns on concepts which might be perceived to affect our freedoms and rights.

The press and the public have raised many questions about legislation. Some strong opinions have been expressed on the subject and this is entirely to be expected in a free society. This will help Legislative Council Members when they scrutinize the Bill and will serve to remind them to keep a balance between national security and personal freedom.

Specifically, the Liberal Party has some suggestions. We feel that certain phrasing in the proposals, are presently too vague, for example, in the matter of "levying war" and "theft of state secrets". These should be much more clearly defined.

In particular, the Government should take into account the very real concerns about the free flow of information and freedom of the press. It goes without saying that if Hong Kong loses its cherished reputation as the only place in South East Asia where information is readily available and reliable, foreign business confidence will suffer a devastating blow, with possibly very adverse consequences for economic growth and foreign investment.

The Government has on a number of occasions reassured the public that the way of life in Hong Kong will not be affected by its proposals. It is equally important for the Government to ensure that the way businesses are done here will in no way be adversely affected, and that investors can continue to do business in an open and predictable environment. And the Liberal Party believes that this message must be spelt out loud and clear.

Understandably, concerns have expressed by some businesses, including the international banks, and the small and medium enterprises, on whether and how laws protecting national security will have an effect on their daily operation. We urge the Government to take every opportunity to clarify such concerns, such as:

- whether doing business with Taiwan which has certain political beliefs will amount to secession or subversion, and this "Taiwan" means Taiwanese or Taiwanese companies;

- whether normal business dealings with overseas organizations will come under the proposed offence in relation to foreign political parties; and

- if a Hong Kong businessman comes into possession certain economic and business information which is classified sensitive in the Mainland, whether this will constitute an offence of theft of state secret under the proposals.

Madam President, it will not serve the interests of this city if the press feels inhibited from doing its job as a watchdog of the Government and a fearless commentator on society. These are the attributes which have made Hong Kong what it is.

We therefore caution that the Government must take great care to ensure that the freedom of the media should be protected. Therefore the definition of seditious information has to be clearly defined. We also believe the offence of possessing seditious publications is too wide and may incriminate many innocent citizens. We therefore call for a thorough review with the objective of removing this clause.

There is also considerable concern about forceable entry by the police. The Government is proposing to vest the authority for this action in any police superintendent. The Liberal Party believes that this power should be exercised sparingly and only under the most urgent circumstances. Even then it should only be authorized by the Commissioner of Police.

Prior to the introduction of the Bill we would like to see a paper containing the Government's position on the views expressed and received so far, so that the public may be informed as to what views aired during the consultation period have been taken on board. This will certainly help to facilitate a much more balanced and informed debate on the Blue Bill.

Madam President, with these remarks, I support the amendment.