During his election campaign for the position of Chief Executive in June 2005, Mr. Donald Tsang Yam-kuen conceded that he has no intention in reviving the Article 23 legislation during his term of 2004-2006. Mr. Donald Tsang is now the Chief Executive of Hong Kong.

Hotline Asia issued UA021205(10) in December 2002 to call for the withdrawal of the National Security Legislation.

Source:
South China Morning Post

On 19 September 2004, the Hong Kong Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa said the national security bill, intended to implement Article 23 of the Basic Law of Hong Kong, would not be introduced to the Legislative Council until there was a "basic consensus" on the question.

While the decision is welcome by the Democratic Alliance for Betterment of Hong Kong, but the Liberal Party chairman James Tien Pie-chun viewed otherwise. "Since the new Legislative Council has formed and only three years are left of the chief executive's term… it is a suitable time to take the amended bill to public consultation," Mr. Tien commented.

The controversial national security bill prompted the historical July 1 rally in 2003. Hotline-Asia issued UA021205(10) requesting the government not to pass the bill.

Source:
South China Morning Post

Despite the efforts of the government to implement Article 23 of the Basic Law, the people of Hong Kong demonstrated "people power" in a protest on 1 July 2003 and were able to defer the National Security Bill.

Members of the Article 23 Concern Group believe that with the Article 23 legislation postponed, it is time to move on with democratic reform. The Chief Executive's Policy Address on 7 January 2004 announced that the government will set up a Task Force, headed by the Chief Secretary for Administration, the Secretary for Justice and the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs to seriously examine the development of Hong Kong's political structure, especially the relevant provisions of the Basic Law, and to consult with relevant authorities of the Central People's Government.

Hotline issued UA021205(10) in December 2002 to call for the withdrawal of the National Security Legislation. Local concern groups and legal professionals were alarmed that the implementation of Article 23: legislation on national security would be enacted in Hong Kong without scrutiny by a fully democratically created legislature.

Source:
South China Morning Post, HKSAR government webpage - CE's Policy Address 2004

It was announced on 17 July, that a second round of public consultation on the National Security Bill will be conducted. The full text of the bill will be compiled, incorporating the many amendments that have been made to it since it was first published in January 2003. It will be discussed with the Legislative Council's bills committee on the national security law. How the bill will be published and the timetable for the enactment of the law have not been announced. The authorities emphasized that the purpose of this round of consultation is to win the maximum understanding and support of the community as a whole for this legislation.

These developments were prompted by a protest march on 1st July, in which more than 500,000 people took to the streets of Hong Kong to protest against the government's rush to pass the controversial national security bill (also known as Article 23 legislation). A few days after the demonstration, Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa made concessions on three most contentious clauses of the bill, deleting provisions allowing police searches without a warrant, as well as those banning groups linked to organizations banned in the mainland, and including a public interest defence against the offense of theft of state secrets. However he also announced that a vote on the Bill would go ahead on 9 July 2003, as planned.

In a stunning turnabout on 7 July, the Hong Kong Government announced a deferral of the second reading of the national security bill, following the resignation of cabinet member, Mr. James Tien Pei-chun and concerns that further demonstrations might turn violent. Previously, the call of the Liberal Party, of which Mr. Tien is the chairman, to delay the bill had been rejected. The votes of the Liberal Party were needed by the Government to ensure the passage of the bill.

Proposals for the legislation were introduced for public consultation from September to December 2002. The contents of the proposals have been criticized as threatening human rights, including freedom of the press and freedom of association while the process of consultation has been criticized for allowing only limited scrutiny as draft legislation was not released, for being rushed, and for being undertaken prior to the establishment of a fully democratic government. For more information on concerns regarding the legislation please refer to UA 021205(10) and relevant updates. Also visit www.article23.org.hk and www.civilhrfront.org (in Chinese) for local concerns and action on the issue.

Source:
South China Morning Post

The 50-member Legislative Council (LegCo) Bills Committee began its scrutiny of the National Security (Legislative Provisions) Bill on 25 March. The Committee planned to propose questions and invite groups and members of the public to make representations and to debate the issue of Hong Kong's National Security legislation twice a week.

The submissions of most of the 50 groups and individuals from a wide range of fields including human rights and academia, received little media attention and the time allotted for hearing 57 submissions was not adequate. For example, on 12 and 26 April, the groups were reportedly allowed only 5 minutes to express views on the complicated issues regarding treason, subversion, sedition, theft of state secrets, and proscription of organizations in mainland China and in Hong Kong.

The media has been commenting that the legislation is being rushed through in a tight schedule with a self-imposed deadline of mid-July 2003, in spite of the government claim that there is no deadline to implement Article 23 of the Basic Law of Hong Kong to pass legislation on national security. The last pubic hearing on 3 May was reported to have gone unnoticed except for Catholic Bishop Joseph Zen's criticism of the government attempting to push through anti-subversion law by taking advantage of a time when people in Hong Kong have been distracted from political affairs by the fight against the SARS calamity in April and May.

Among the concerns of the local groups and legislators who have voiced opinions against the bill was the proscription mechanism which was said to have vague and unreasonable terms, and extends to limit the freedom of association and religious freedom. The bill also has provisions for the Chief Justice to make rules for appeals against an order of proscription to be held in secret in the absence of legal representatives. Key terms such as treason, subversion, secession, also need to be more narrowly defined. Opposition rallies against the legislation are planned on 4 June and 1 July 2003.

Previously, in December 2002, submissions and a 60,000-people rally against the legislation, as well as demands for a white bill that would have allowed another round of public consultation on the exact wording of the legislation, have been ignored and rejected. Instead, the government issued a "blue bill" to be debated in the non-democratically elected LegCo. For more background information and concerns on the proposal for national security legislation in Hong Kong, please refer to UA 021205(10) and related update.

Overview and details of the National Security (Legislative Provisions) Bill can be found at http://www.basiclaw23.gov.hk/english/index.htm

Concerns and actions of the local concern groups can also be found at www.article23.org.hk and http://www.civilhrfront.org (in Chinese)

Source:
South China Morning Post
Sunday Examiner

In spite of the objections from businesses, human rights groups and foreign governments who have complained about ambiguities in the consultation document on proposals to implement national security legislation, the Hong Kong government has ended the public consultation period as scheduled on 24 December 2002. The critics urged the government to issue the draft text of the legislation (white bill) for public comment before asking the Legislative Council (LegCo) to takeup the issue, but this was rejected. The draft legislation finally went through its first reading in the Legislative Council on 26 February 2003.

After the consultation period, officials claimed that many of the views expressed by the public on the proposed legislation, would be accepted by the government when it finalizes the legislation. Results of the consultation on the proposals under Article 23 of the Basic Law were released on 28 January. They showed that most of the 90,000 respondents to the consultation on Art 23 had supported the proposals. This caused an uproar, with opponents claiming that the results were misinterpreted. Some groups complained that their views submitted during the three-month consultaion were not documented in the 18-volume conpendium published by the Security Bureau. Others, including ACPP's submission were wrongly classified as being "unclear" when they were plainly opposed to the proposals.

Draft legislation for the national security law was tabled to the Executive Council (ExCo) for discussion on 11 February amid growing calls that enactment should not be rushed through. It is understood that the blue-print to implement the controversial proposals under Article 23 of the Basic Law incorporated the revised package announced by the Security Bureau without further concessions. Subject to endorsement by ExCo, the blueprint would be gazetted on 14 February and tabled to the LegCo for a first reading on 26 February. The moves meant the legislative process was effectively launched, dashing hopes for further consultation through a white bill.

The blue bill (legislation to be debated at the LegCo before becoming law) outlining the government's plans for implemenating controversial anti-subversion laws was finally unveiled on 13 February, with officials claiming it is one of the most liberal pieces of national security legislation in the world.

The changes to the proposed Article 23 measure include exempting foreign nationals from prosecution for treason and abolishing the contentious offence of seditious publication, but no changes were made to other sections that had raised fears in church circles. Parts of the proposed bill that more directly threaten associations and religious communities remained, allowing prosecution of the local branch of an organization when a mainland branch of that same organization is declared by the Central Government authorities to endanger state security. Under the bill, the security chief could ban local groups if it is "reasonably believed" this is necessary in the interest of national security.

Also, officials had promised in a pamphlet issued to the public that the free flow of financial information would not be impeded. But the blue bill makes no explicit guarantee. Similarly, statements such as "the rights and freedoms of speech of the press of procession, demonstration and assembly will in no way be underminded" were also not found in the draft.

About 20 legislators from the Democratic Party and the Frontiers, the Confederation of Trade Unions and some independents were reported to have walked out as the blue bill underwent its first reading.

In a report to Parliament on Hong Kong, the UK Foreign Secretary said: "This is the most sensitive piece of legislation since the handover. It covers issues which go to the heart of the "One Country, Two Systems" principle. The huge number of responses to the SAR Government's Consultation Document, which outlined its proposals for legislation, is testimony to the strength of feeling that this issue has engendered in Hong Kong".

A compilation of the submissions can be found at
http://www.basiclaw23.gov.hk/english/index.htm

and its summary at
http://www.basiclaw23.gov.hk/english/download/forward-e.pdf

More information on local actions by concerned groups can be found at
www.article23.org.hk

For background information on the issues relating to the legislation in Hong Kong, please refer to UA030228(1). Please keep posted on this issue in case further action is needed.

Source:
South China Morning Post
International Herald Tribune,
Sunday Examiner
UK Parliament Six-monthly report on HK, July -December 2002, presented by the Secretary for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, February 2003