01 July 2003
Senators Urge Hong Kong Government to Respect Freedoms
(Brownback, Kyl submit bill similar to House Resolution 277) (2260) The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific submitted a resolution June 27 that calls on the Hong Kong government to respect the freedoms presently enjoyed by the territory's residents and to vote down a legislative initiative that would diminish those freedoms in the name of tightening security in the territory. Senator Sam Brownback (Republican of Kansas) introduced Senate Joint Resolution 14 (S. J. Res. 14), with Senator Jon Kyl (Republican of Kansas) as cosponsor. The proposed resolution was referred to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for action. S. J. Res. 14 calls on the President to urge the Hong Kong government not to implement "any law, including any law established pursuant to the proposed implementation of Article 23 of the Basic Law, that restricts the basic human right to freedom of thought and expression." S.J. Res. 14 is similar to House Resolution 277, which passed June 26 in the House of Representatives in a 426-1 roll call vote. Following is the text of the proposed Senate resolution: (begin text) By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself and Mr. KYL): S.J. Res. 14. A joint resolution expressing support for freedom in Hong Kong; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a joint resolution for myself and Senator KYL regarding the United States' commitment to preserving freedom in Hong Kong. It is not simply the responsibility of the United States, but also of the Administration of Tung Chee Hwa, Hong Kong's chief executive and the People's Republic of China. This resolution emphasizes an isolated event taking place on July 9 of this year -- the passage of draconian laws on sedition, subversion, and theft of state secrets. This law evokes something out of one of the novels of George Orwell. Just as the resolution states, the law, as now drafted, is vague and overly broad in its definitions of subversion, sedition, and official secrets. The Secretary of Security, an appointee of the Government of the People's Republic of China, would have very broad authority to ban organizations not approved by his Beijing masters. Nothing less than the survival of the Catholic Church in China and the Falun Gong, a quasi-religious practice that emphasizes breathing and meditation, are at stake with this law. Beijing has clearly targeted these and many other groups promoting democracy and human rights. In addition, the Secretary of Security would have the authority to waive the right to notice and the right to be heard -- something that person could execute on a whim. This horrendous bill would allow the Hong Kong Government to prosecute members of the news media for publishing information that would arbitrarily be deemed a "state secret." These "state secrets" might include Hong Kong-Mainland cooperation on the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome or SARS. If China handled a new outbreak of some contagion the same way it handled SARS, I would think the people of Hong Kong should know that their lives might be in danger because of the Government's negligence. This is the extreme case, however, it must be made clear to my colleagues, and to the world, that the legislation to be voted on July 9, in Hong Kong would create a severe chilling effect on the press to freely report information. The Hong Kong Journalists Association, the Overseas Press Club, and the Committee to Protect Journalists all oppose this bill. In addition, the legislation would strip other provisions contained in a current Hong Kong law, the Societies Ordinance, of due process protections. On top of that, the Hong Kong police would have new powers to search without having a warrant. Those two provisions are the bedrock of a free society. How does the Hong Kong government think it can get away with this? It assumes that it can ride out the cries of outrage from inside Hong Kong and throughout the world. I hope that Chief Executive Tung's administration understands that this resolution only represents the beginning. Sir, if you read these comments, please understand you are on the losing side of history. Hong Kong has been remarkably free in the last six years. That is a true statement. The fact that Mr. Tung and his colleagues fail to understand is that without these freedoms, Hong Kong will surely fail. Unfortunately, the People's Republic of China has increasingly interfered in Hong Kong's independent judiciary, intimidated the media to induce self-censorship, and excluded visitors who disagree with the Chinese Communist Party's policies. The Hong Kong SAR Government, encouraged by the Government of the People's Republic of China, has eroded Hong Kong's political independence, international prestige, and its appeal as a business and financial hub of Asia. Recently, the American Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong reversed its position regarding the bill saying that it would be a disaster for business in Hong Kong. The South China Morning Post reported: "In a letter to all legislators, chamber chairman James Thompson said the bill contained worrying provisions, such as that seeking to ban organisations. These would jeopardise Hong Kong's distinctive features, in particular its transparent legal system and free flow of information." Similarly, the International Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong in its submission to the Hong Kong Government opposing the bill stated "We regret that the Administration has chosen to ignore our request, and that of many others in Hong Kong for a second round of public consultation before bringing the matter to the Legislative Council, and rigidly following its own timetable." They continued saying, "The Consultation Document is complicated enough, and has taken us much time to prepare a response. The Bill is even more difficult to study as it relates to a number of existing ordinances, if nothing else. Yet we have to rush to forward our comments to meet a deadline. This timetable also puts undue pressure on the Legislative Council to finish scrutiny in a hurry. For a matter of such great significance, it is to be regretted that it should have to be rushed through at the risk of sacrificing quality." The lifeblood of Hong Kong's existence, its business community, opposes the bill and the Hong Kong Government pressured by Beijing fails to understand why there is all this outrage. The business community in this fascinating center for finance, shipping and media is well known for its cozy relationship with Mr. Tung, his cabinet and other officials, and even for being close with Beijing to get the favorable treatment it receives in China. Yet, this community, arguably the most influential in Hong Kong's affairs, is out right opposed to the effort to suppress freedom in Hong Kong. It is not such a large leap to understand that Hong Kong's vibrancy results from its freedom. I underline these concerns for my colleagues today in the hope that it will give pause to legislators in Hong Kong, and deter this and any future assaults on freedom in this important territory. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the RECORD. There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: S.J. Res. 14 Whereas Hong Kong has long been the freest economy in the world, renowned for its rule of law and its zealous protection of civil rights and civil liberties; Whereas the Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the People's Republic of China on the Question of Hong Kong, done at Beijing December 19, 1984 (the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984) explicitly guarantees that all of Hong Kong's freedoms, including freedom of the press, religious freedom, and freedom of association, will continue for at least 50 years after the transfer of Hong Kong's sovereignty from the United Kingdom to the People's Republic of China on July 1, 1997; Whereas in the 6 years since the transfer of the territory, the citizens of Hong Kong have enjoyed a certain degree of individual liberty, religious freedom, freedom of the press and freedom of speech, which keep it both politically vibrant and stable; Whereas the People's Republic of China has increasingly interfered in Hong Kong's independent judiciary, intimidated the media to induce self-censorship, and excluded visitors who disagree with the policies of the Chinese Communist Party; Whereas the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR), encouraged by the Government of the People's Republic of China, has eroded Hong Kong's political independence, international prestige, and appeal as a business and financial hub of Asia; Whereas the freedoms cherished by the people of Hong Kong serve as a constant reminder to the world and to the Government of the People's Republic of China that such freedoms could, but do not, prevail on mainland China; Whereas the traditional liberties of Hong Kong's 7,000,000 people are now immediately threatened by a new national security bill proposed by the SAR Government that would revise Hong Kong's laws regarding sedition, treason, subversion, and theft of state secrets; Whereas the national security bill, as now drafted, is vague and overly broad in its definitions of subversion, sedition, and official secrets, weakens existing due process protections in the Societies Ordinance, and gives dangerous new powers to the police to make searches without warrant; Whereas the proposed legislation would give the Hong Kong SAR Secretary for Security, an appointee of the Government of the People's Republic of China, broad authority to ban organizations not approved by Beijing, thereby threatening religious organizations such as the Falun Gong and the Roman Catholic Church; Whereas, under the proposed legislation, such basic and fundamental procedural rights as notice and opportunity to be heard could be waived by the Secretary for Security if honoring these rights ``would not be practicable''; Whereas the proposed legislation provides for the imprisonment of individuals accused of ``unauthorized disclosure of protected information,'' making it possible for the Hong Kong SAR Government to prosecute members of the news media for publishing any information relevant to relations between the People's Republic of China and Hong Kong; Whereas similar subversion laws in the People's Republic of China are regularly used to convict and imprison journalists, labor activists, Internet entrepreneurs, and academics; Whereas the members of Hong Kong's Legislative Council who have been elected by universal suffrage oppose the proposed legislation, but are powerless as a minority to block the votes controlled directly and indirectly by the Government of the People's Republic of China; Whereas the clear majority of people in Hong Kong have expressed strong concerns about, and opposition to, the proposed legislation; Whereas the scheduled consideration of these proposals to restrict Hong Kong's freedoms in the Legislative Council on July 9, 2003, makes the threat to the people of Hong Kong clear and imminent; and Whereas the United States has consistently supported the desire of the people of Hong Kong to be free, and, as Congress declared in the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 (22 U.S.C. 5701 et seq.): ``The human rights of the people of Hong Kong are of great importance to the United States and are directly relevant to United States interests in Hong Kong. Human rights also serve as a basis for Hong Kong's continued economic prosperity'': Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress-- (1) declares that restrictions on freedom of thought, expression, and association in Hong Kong are limits on the fundamental rights of the people of Hong Kong; (2) declares that the national security bill would undermine freedom of the press and access to information, both of which are fundamentally important to the economic and commercial success of Hong Kong; (3) calls upon the SAR Government to-- (A) avoid implementing any law that restricts the basic human freedoms of thought and expression, including the proposed implementation of Article 23 of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China (the Basic Law); and (B) immediately schedule and conduct elections for the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong SAR according to rules approved by the people of Hong Kong through an election law convention, by referendum, or both; and (4) calls upon the President of the United States to-- (A) urge the Government of Hong Kong, including Hong Kong Chief Executive Tung Chee Hwa and the Legislative Council, not to implement any law, including any law established pursuant to the proposed implementation of Article 23 of the Basic Law, that restricts the basic human right to freedom of thought and expression; (B) call upon the People's Republic of China, the National People's Congress, and any groups appointed by the Government of the People's Republic of China to leave all revisions of Hong Kong law to a democratically-elected legislature; (C) call upon the Government of the People's Republic of China to fully respect the autonomy and independence of the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the chief executive, civil service, judiciary, and police of Hong Kong; (D) declare that the continued lack of an elected legislature in Hong Kong constitutes a violation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984; and (E) call upon the Government of the People's Republic of China to honor its treaty obligations under the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984. (end text) (Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
