| 5 March 2003
The Editor
The Times
London
Dear Sir,
Hong Kong’s proposed new national security
laws were recently discussed by Robin Fitzsimons
(The Times, 4 March 2003).
It is true that certain aspects of the original
proposals were criticised by some lawyers. However,
a leading human rights expert, Mr David Pannick
QC, advised that all the proposals were consistent
with human rights law. Moreover, most of the concerns
raised during the consultation exercise have been
addressed in the recently published Bill. It proposes
laws on national security that would in many respects
be more liberal than those that applied in Hong
Kong before 1997.
Neither the proposed power of proscription nor
the proposed offence of subversion ‘will
be a powerful weapon to silence opposition’
as one critic has alleged. Subversion could only
be committed by someone who engages in war, or
who uses force or serious criminal means that
seriously endangers the stability of the PRC.
A local organization could only be proscribed
if the Secretary for Security reasonably believes
it is necessary for and proportionate to the safeguarding
of the territorial integrity or independence of
the PRC. Appeals will lie to the courts, which
will be required to implement the new laws in
accordance with human rights guarantees. No particular
organizations are being targeted by the proposed
power. Religious groups can be assured that freedom
of religion is constitutionally protected in Hong
Kong.
The proposed offence of handling a seditious
publication could only be committed by a person
who intends to incite others to commit an offence
of treason, subversion or secession. University
libraries would not commit an offence merely by
circulating or displaying seditious literature.
The legislative process is just beginning and
the SAR Government will continue to listen to
views expressed on the proposals. There is no
doubt that the rule of law and fundamental freedoms
will be preserved in Hong Kong.
|
