|
21 August 2003
Tel .: 2810 2666
Fax : 2810 1345
The Editor,
Sydney Morning Herald
Dear Sir,
I would like to clarify a few important issues mentioned
or alluded to in your article "Don't soft-pedal
with Beijing, says HK activist" on 19 August.
First, the Hong Kong Basic Law guarantees that the
previous system and way of life will extend to 2047,
not 2007. It also expressly guarantees rights and freedoms
in accordance with international covenants as applied
to Hong Kong. No legislation, including the National
Security (Legislative Provisions) Bill, is above these
constitutional safeguards.
"Subversion" in the above?mentioned Bill
is limited to the use of force or serious criminal
means akin to terrorist acts that seriously endanger
the stability of China, or engaging in war. All our
proposals are fully consistent with all human rights
conventions applicable to Hong Kong.
It is simply wrong to suggest, as the article does,
that reports of SARS outbreak would be criminalized
as a result of the proposals. Our legislative proposals,
which had been scrutinized closely by legislators,
are based on the existing Official Secrets Ordinance,
a law localized from the corresponding UK legislation.
The net effect or our proposed amendments is a reduction
in the scope of protected information under existing
law.
Hong Kong is required by the Basic Law to enact the
national security legislation "on its own" - meaning
in Hong Kong and by Hong Kong. All local legislation,
including those implementing Article 23, would be adjudicated
and interpreted by our common law courts. Jury trials
are explicitly made available for all relevant offences.
There is absolutely no question of Hong Kong importing
Mainland security laws or definitions of "state
secrets".
Yours faithfully,
(Timothy Tong)
Acting Permanent Secretary for Security
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region |
Back
|
