Regards, Ivan
Posted on 09/27/2002 5:31:55 AM PDT by MadIvan
Are Hong Kong's liberties gradually being taken away?
THROW a frog into boiling water and it jumps out; gently bring it to the boil, and the frog, never noticing the incremental increases in heat, allows itself to be cooked. Is Hong Kong a frog in a pot in Beijing's kitchen? If so, then on September 24th the temperature rose another notch.
On that day, Hong Kong's government formally began—by circulating a consultation paper—the process of enacting a controversial set of laws against subversion, sedition, treason and other ills, as required by Article 23 of the Basic Law, the territory's constitution. Overdue and a mere matter of protocol, says the government—something that should have been seen to in 1997, when Hong Kong returned to Chinese sovereignty. An insidious threat to Hong Kong's liberties, counter the critics. If Article 23 could wait for five years, what's the urgency now?
To understand the controversy, it is necessary to know a bit about Article 23's history. The Basic Law came into being during the 1980s and 1990s, as a result of the negotiations between Britain and China about Hong Kong's handover. Its over-arching formula came to be known as “one country, two systems”. Hong Kong, in other words, would remain autonomous, and would enjoy freedoms absent on the Communist mainland. A principal concession to Beijing was a phrase, included in 1988, requiring Hong Kong to prohibit any act “to subvert” the central government.
The problem, however, was that subversion is an alien term to Anglo-Saxon common law, on which Hong Kong's legal system is based. After all, most citizens in free societies regard it as a basic right to subvert—peacefully—their own governments: they call it opposition. So a second draft, in February 1989, replaced “subversion” with “treason, secession, sedition or theft of state secrets”, concepts already defined, if not much invoked.
Then came the Tiananmen Square massacre in June 1989. Hong Kong was horrified at the crimes committed by its future leaders, but the leaders were horrified in turn by the prospect that they might soon have to contend with similar uprisings in Hong Kong, where they would be powerless to crack down. The colony was rocked by huge demonstrations in support of the students. Supplies, money and, perhaps most important, newspapers were sent to them. In the months after the massacre, China insisted on a new draft. The final version of Article 23, in April 1990, restored the requirement for the prohibition of subversion, and added new ones aimed at links between “political bodies” in Hong Kong and abroad.
“Isn't it obvious that, after Tiananmen, Beijing felt threatened and wanted more control?” asks Martin Lee, who helped draft the early versions of the Basic Law and now leads Hong Kong's Democratic Party, the closest thing to an opposition in Hong Kong's toothless and mostly unelected legislature. The fear is that the proposed laws are really targeted at groups such as Falun Gong, a spiritual movement considered an “evil cult” on the mainland but currently legal in Hong Kong. Tung Chee-hwa, Hong Kong's chief executive (pictured above right with Mr Lee), certainly appears to hate having to tolerate Falun Gong in Hong Kong. He might welcome means to brand the group as subversive and deal with it accordingly.
Falun Gong, moreover, is only the most obvious potential target of the new laws. Other dissidents are worried too. So are some journalists and academics, who fret about the clauses regarding theft of state secrets and sedition. Could a research paper on, say, Taiwan-mainland relations constitute a “seditious publication”?
The government, naturally, is working hard to allay these concerns. Not only, it says, has it compared its proposals to existing laws in countries far and wide, it has also complied strictly with international covenants on civil rights in the drafting. Besides, it adds, the point of the whole exercise is only to protect national security, not to limit anybody's freedom of expression. The definitions are tight enough, the government says, that most journalists and dissidents should have nothing to fear.
Ask, for instance, Elsie Leung, Hong Kong's justice secretary, about Falun Gong. She pulls a tome off her shelf and leafs through it to find some fine print that defines political bodies as organisations that “promote or prepare candidates for elections”, under which definition Falun Gong is not a political body in Hong Kong, at least for the present. Or ask Regina Ip, the secretary for security, whether, under the proposed laws, she could extend the mainland ban of Falun Gong to Hong Kong. No, she replies, as Beijing at present does not ban the group on national-security grounds (required for a Hong Kong ban under the new rules) but under a different category, one for “evil cults”. This is meant to be reassuring.
Critics fear this is all part of a pattern, whereby Mr Tung is slowly eroding Hong Kong's checks and balances. In July, he altered Hong Kong's colonial government structure, in which he sat atop an apolitical civil service. He replaced it with one in which he oversees a cabinet of ministers accountable only to himself, who is in turn accountable only to Beijing. It is these ministers who are now drafting Hong Kong's new laws. Every few months, it seems, the water gets a little hotter.
Regards, Ivan
Hong Kong also is an elegant counterpoint to everything the leftists believe. It is too bad that it has fallen into the hands of the Communists. I would rather Britain had pointed a nuke at Beijing than give it up.
Regards, Ivan
But as to the point of your post, it's not just Hong Kong in the slow-boiling pot. The entire Pacific rim (and indeed the West) should be wary of China's growing economic and military power.
Nothing could be a more stupid statement IMO.
Under 'communism' China tried to exert itself over Asia in its own brand of subversion. Now, even under the (self proclaimed, but not so true) "capitalism" China is STILL employing the same old communist tactics.
They want to force, and enforce, views on people. They want to impose themselves as ultimate rulers. The CCP wants it all, and THEY are the rulers, and THEY should have it, and THEY are entitled to it, because "china is the grandpapa of all of Asia" or so the saying goes.
Not very much has changed at all in the mode of operandi of the CCP. Its hard to describe in words, but its true.
Economics alone are only partially the issue. The stinking party line, and ideology, and people willing to kill over that ideology is the problem. They are expansionists just like China always has been expansionists.
Rule #1 for the CCP: "we will ALWAYS rule China"
Rule #2: We will try to extend our power over all of Asia, and wherever we need to.
They have a set 'revolutionary' method of thinking and thats that. One could make a stellar argument against the CCP, but they will ignore it, and continue on like the rocks for brains they are.
They are trying to impose their feudal rule over whoever they can, and make sure that NO ONE challenges them or their positions.
Because the Island wouldn't have survived on its own - too many people lived in the New Territories for such a division to work. We should have, in effect, offered to buy the New Territories.
Regards, Ivan
Would have been nice to see the Union Jack still flying over HK, but my guess is Red China would have had none of that.
I've done some reading into Jardine Matheson and the hong kong traders. Fascinating stuff. I believe it was shipowner Tung who broke Jardine's dominance in the colony.
Hong Kong isn't slowly boiling, it's fried already. Done.
That Britain did not set it up to be equivalent to a Singapore (Hong Kong has twice the population) is Britain's shame and Hong Kong's loss.
I'm sure your right.
China's just stripping the carcass. Once the economy is gone, who's going to care about these liberties?
Thanks,
Regards, Ivan
The American Indians can tell you that treaties are worthless as paper and are only as good as the military power behind them. We ceded South Dakota to the Indians until gold was discovered then we simply took it back. The Chinese did not want to cede hong kong to the British, but the british military was too strong. In the 20th century, the British military could not stop a takeover of Hong Kong, so they negotiated a give back. The original taking of Hong Kong was due to the Opium war. Here China barred the importation of opium. There were several wealthy british families who were making millions from the opium trade and britain went to war to force china to allow opium imports. China lost and ceded Hong Kong to britain in the process.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.