[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 95 (Wednesday, June 25, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8550-S8551]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CIVIL LIBERTIES IN HONG KONG
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, 8 months ago I took the floor in this
Chamber to call attention to some disturbing trends with regard to
democracy and civil liberties in Hong Kong. I said that Hong Kong's
rulers, at the behest of Beijing, were set upon a path that risked
destroying the spirit and vitality that make Hong Kong unique. I urged
those who care about Hong Kong, and about freedom, to speak out and
alert Hong Kong authorities to the error of their ways. Many did so.
Today, I regret to report, Hong Kong is one step closer to becoming
just another Chinese city. Hong Kong's Legislative Council is expected
to vote into law next month antisubversion legislation that would
significantly erode the barriers that insulate Hong Kong's residents
from the antidemocratic legal concepts and practices of the People's
Republic of China.
As I said here last October, China's leaders pressured their hand-
picked Chief Executive in Hong Kong, Tung Chee-Hwa, to introduce this
legislation last year. Hong Kong authorities maintained that they had
no choice but to comply, since Article 23 of the Basic Law that became
Hong Kong's constitution after the territory reverted from British to
Chinese control in 1997 required Hong Kong to adopt laws to protect
national security. Many Hong Kong legal experts disagreed. But be that
as it may, the same Basic Law says the territory will move toward
electing its legislature and executive by universal suffrage. At
present, only one-third of the legislators were chosen by direct
popular vote, and only 800 of Hong Kong's 7 million residents were
allowed to cast ballots in Tung Chee-Hwa's reelection as Chief
Executive last year. The Government has yet to announce any plans to
expand suffrage.
The sequence of these steps is important. Pushing through legislation
curtailing civil liberties to comply with Article 23 before
establishing a democratic legislature per Article 68 violates the most
fundamental tenet of popular rule--that governmental authority is
derived from the consent of the governed. The Hong Kong authorities
invited public comments on the legislation, both in its initial outline
form and later detailed drafts. But despite serious objections from
journalists, lawyers, chambers of commerce, human rights activists,
religious groups, and other interested parties, the bill on which the
Legislative Council is expected to vote next month reflects only minor
revisions from the Government's original draft. Without a legislature
accountable to the citizenry, the people were free to speak their
views, but the Government was free to ignore them.
As a result, most of the concerns I raised about the legislative
proposal last October remain unaddressed:
Definitions of offenses such as ``subversion,'' ``sedition'' and
``secession'' are extremely vague, permitting security officials to
prosecute people arbitrarily, as they do on the Mainland.
Merely ``handling'' publications the authorities consider to be
``seditious'' would be a criminal offense, as would ``intimidating''
the Government in Beijing or acting to ``disestablish'' the ``basic
system'' of China--meaning the political monopoly of the Communist
Party--or endangering China's ``stability.''
``Inciting'' subversion, even if only through speech, would be
criminalized. In China, workers have been given long prison sentences
for ``inciting subversion'' for simply demanding to be paid. Others
have received 10-year terms for criticizing the Government on the
Internet.
Hong Kong affiliates of organizations that Beijing decides threaten
national security may be banned. This provision is likely to be used to
ban Falun Gong, and conceivably it could be applied to the Roman
Catholic Church if it does not renounce its ties to Rome. Hong Kong
groups that monitor human rights and labor conditions in China have
also been labeled ``hostile foreign elements'' by Mainland authorities
and thus could be targeted.
Police will be permitted to enter and search private residences and
seize property without a warrant.
Journalists and others could be prosecuted for the unauthorized
disclosure of official secrets or information related to Hong Kong
affairs that are the responsibility of the Central Government. Recall
that for 5 months, Mainland authorities treated information about SARS
as an official secret, and the world learned about the epidemic only
after it spread to Hong Kong. Disclosing that information was clearly
in the public's interest. But this bill does not allow a public
interest defense, nor is there any counterbalancing right-to-know or
freedom-of-information legislation. If this bill becomes law, how long
will it take us to find out about China's next epidemic?
These proposed revisions to Hong Kong's laws, demanded by Beijing,
run counter to China's commitment in the 1984 Sino-British Declaration
to preserve Hong Kong's civil liberties for at least 50 years following
the handover. They would significantly undermine such internationally
recognized basic human rights as freedom of expression, freedom of
association, and freedom of conscience, and potentially threaten
freedom of religion and the right to due process as well.
Hong Kong's democratic politicians, activists, attorneys,
journalists, and other professionals are understandably alarmed about
this legislation. To hear some of them tell it, passage of this bill
will mean the end of Hong Kong as we know it. In reality, I suspect
most Hong Kong residents would wake up on July 10 to find life in their
city essentially unchanged. The effects of this legislation will appear
only gradually and incrementally. The first to feel the impact will
probably be groups on the margins of Hong Kong society, such as Falun
Gong practitioners. Perhaps most Hong Kongers will say nothing, because
they are not Falun Gong practitioners. But over time, they will come to
find themselves living in a poorer place, and the world will be poorer
as a result.
If this legislation passes in its present form, it promises to make
Hong Kong poorer in more ways than one. Last December, the American
Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong wrote the Government to express its
concern about the bill's potential impact on the free flow of
information, which it said was essential for the operation of Hong
Kong's markets and for maintaining its competitiveness as a business
location. The letter came a few weeks after a senior analyst at Bank of
China International resigned after China's Premier criticized one of
his reports. The British Chamber of Commerce warned Hong Kong could
become ``a much less favorable location for international business'' if
investors could not obtain free and unfettered information. Some
analysts have suggested that investment on the Chinese Mainland could
suffer as well, since foreign firms operating in China often rely on
their Hong Kong offices for uncensored information about the Mainland.
Through the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992, Congress made
support for human rights and democratization in Hong Kong a fundamental
principle of United States foreign policy. As a concrete expression of
support for Hong Kong's continued autonomy, the act stipulated that
Hong Kong would continue to receive the same treatment under most
United States laws after the handover as it had before. However, it
allowed the President to suspend that provision on a case by case
basis, whenever he determined that Hong Kong was no longer sufficiently
autonomous to justify being treated differently from the rest of China
under a particular law. This is not a decision the President should
take lightly. However, if the proposed legislation compromises the
independence of Hong Kong's judicial system or the integrity of its
financial markets, as some analysts fear, the President would have no
choice but to review specific United States statutes to evaluate
whether separate treatment for Hong Kong can still be justified.
I hope we never get to that point. I hope that Hong Kong's freedom
and its creativity can be preserved and that its people will be given
more say in how they are governed, not less. For that reason, I urge
those in the Hong Kong Government and Legislative Council who care
about Hong Kong's future--and I am sure most of them do--to turn back
from the course they are on before it is too late.
[[Page S8551]]
____________________