[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 20672-20674]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      CIVIL LIBERTIES IN HONG KONG

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I'd like to take a few minutes this 
morning to call attention to recent disturbing trends with regard to 
democracy and civil liberties in Hong Kong.
  As you know, Hong Kong recently marked 5 years under the sovereignty 
of the People's Republic of China. When the territory reverted from 
British to Chinese control in 1997, China's communist rulers in Beijing 
promised to respect its autonomy for a period of 50 years under the so-
called ``One Country, Two Systems'' formula. They also agreed Hong Kong 
would move toward direct elections by 2007.
  At the same time, however, Article 23 of the so-called Basic Law that 
became Hong Kong's new constitution required that the territory adopt 
legislation prohibitting ``treason, secession, sedition or subversion'' 
against the Chinese

[[Page 20673]]

Government in Beijing, as well as ``theft of state secrets.''
  The Hong Kong Bar Association, among others, did not believe new 
legislation was necessary, since existing Hong Kong laws were 
sufficient to deal with legitimate national security concerns. But 
Beijing felt otherwise.
  When Chinese President Jiang Zemin and Vice Premier Qian Qichen 
traveled to Hong Kong in July to commemorate the fifth anniversary of 
the handover, they reportedly made clear to Tung Chee-Hwa, their hand-
picked chief executive, that they wanted an anti-subversion statute 
adopted without further delay.
  Three weeks ago, Tung's administration obliged, unveiling a plan for 
new legislation to implement Article 23. Tung called the plan ``both 
liberal and reasonable.'' But it contains a number of provisions that 
could potentially seriously undermine civil liberties in Hong Kong.
  For example, Tung's plan makes it an offense to organize or support 
the activities of organizations deemed by Beijing to threaten national 
security. It allows the police to enter and search private residences 
without a warrant to investigate suspected treason, sedition and 
subversion. It creates a new offense of ``secession,'' presumably for 
advocating independence for Tibet or Taiwan. Citizens would be legally 
obliged to report on alleged ``subversive'' activities of friends, 
neighbors and colleagues. Meanwhile, Journalists could face criminal 
penalites simply for reporting information about relations between Hong 
Kong and Beijing.
  Perhaps the most disturbing element of this legislative proposal is 
that it represents a further intrusion of Beijing's anti-democratic 
legal concepts and practices into Hong Kong. Definitions of offenses 
are vague, giving the government broad discretion to decide whom it 
wants to prosecute, or silence through the threat of prosecution. 
Although Tung says he will uphold human rights and civil liberties as 
the ``pillars of Hong Kong's success,'' his Secretary of Security, 
Regina Ip, admits that, under the proposed legislation, she would 
essentially defer to Beijing to determine which organizations to 
prohibit. Falun Gong leaps to mind. The Dalai Lama's followers might 
also take heed.
  Journalists and scholars have good reason to be concerned if the new 
legislation similarly incorporates Beijing's extremely broad definition 
of what constitutes a ``state secret.'' Rabiya Kadir, a Muslim 
businesswoman once feted by Beijing as a ``model minority,'' is 
currently serving an eight-year sentence under Beijing's state secrets 
law for mailing newspaper clippings to her husband in the United 
States. More recently, a prominent AIDS activist, Wan Yanhai, was 
detained for a month by the Beijing Bureau of State Security for 
leaking ``state secrets.'' His alleged offense was revealing that 
hundreds of thousands of Chinese people might have been infected with 
HIV through unsafe blood transfusions, information the authorities 
didn't think people needed to have.
  Regina Ip, who has been acting as Tung's point person for the new 
anti-subversion law, has attempted to reassure the plan's critics by 
saying Hong Kong's highly regarded independent courts will be 
responsible for interpreting and applying the new law. However, it was 
her government that undermined the integrity of those courts three 
years ago when it appealed a high-court decision on immigration that it 
didn't like to the National People's Congress Standing Committee in 
Beijing, as is its prerogative under the Basic Law. Beijing overturned 
Hong Kong's Final Court of Appeal in that case, setting a dangerous 
precedent in the eyes of Hong Kong's pro-democracy community.
  Ultimately then, as a columnist recently pointed out in the Financial 
Times, the bulwark against erosion of civil liberties in Hong Kong may 
not be the territory's excellent judiciary but its executive, and that 
is not a comforting thought given the track record of Hong Kong's 
executive over the past five years. Tung Chee-Hwa has tightened 
controls on public demonstrations. His government turned away more than 
100 people who sought to travel to Hong Kong to demonstrate at July's 
fifth anniversary ceremonies, so as not to embarrass his VIP guests 
from Beijing. After winning a second five-year term in March in a 
process in which exactly 800 people participated, he introduced a new 
system allowing him to fill his cabinet with hand-picked political 
appointees without the advice or consent of Hong Kong's legislature. 
There is no indication yet of any plans to make the process more 
democratic in 2007.
  More recently, when democracy advocates suggested that the Government 
make a detailed version of its proposed anti-subversion legislation 
available for public comment before the bill is formally introduced in 
the Legislative Council, Regina Ip replied as follows:

       Will taxi drivers, Chinese restaurant waiters, service 
     staff at McDonald's hold a copy of the bill to debate with me 
     article by article?

  Ms. Ip's remarks reveal contempt for the right of the general public 
to be consulted about matters that concern it. Unfortunately, this 
attitude is not uncommon among the economic elite that runs Hong Kong. 
The Chamber of Commerce representative on the Legislative Council has 
openly remarked that popularly elected representatives would spend 
money irresponsibly if given power. Another well-known tycoon is fond 
of saying ``no representation without taxation,'' turning the motto of 
the founders of our American democracy on its head. In other words, 
Hong Kong's is a government of the wealthy, by the wealthy and for the 
wealthy.
  Of course, Hong Kong did not enjoy democracy under British rule, 
either. The business of Hong Kong has always been business. The 
difference now is that the territory's capitalist elite has decided 
that currying favor with the communist dictators in Beijing is good for 
business. If some civil liberties need to be sacrificed in the process, 
they appear willing to accept the bargain.
  Many observers perceive this attitude being reflected in a growing 
tendency toward self-censorship within Hong Kong's major media. For 
example, two years ago the South China Morning Post, which aspires to 
enter the Mainland Chinese market, replaced its veteran, hard-hitting 
China editor, Willy Lam, with the former editor of the Beijing-
controled China Daily. Then, in April of this year, the paper's veteran 
Beijing bureau chief, Jasper Becker, was fired for insubordination 
after complaining that the paper's China coverage was being ``watered 
down.'' I should add, however, that to its credit, the Post has been 
strongly critical of the government's recent legislative proposal.
  Hong Kong today remains a vibrant and cosmopolitan city whose 
citizens enjoy a degree of civil and economic liberties far surpassing 
that of most other countries. But whereas the trend in much of the 
world is toward greater democracy, in Hong Kong things appear to be 
headed in the other direction.
  China's President Jiang Zemin will visit the United States later this 
month. President Bush may want to raise the issue of autonomy and civil 
liberties in Hong Kong with him. That would be entirely appropriate. 
But, I think that we as a society can send a far more powerful message 
to the people who rule Hong Kong in a language they will understand. 
Those individuals fully appreciate that their future depends on their 
ability to perpetuate Hong Kong's status as a global financial center. 
Geography is no longer sufficient to maintain that status. Rather, what 
makes Hong Kong Hong Kong, what makes thousands of talented people from 
throughout the world eager to live and work there, is its spirit, its 
vitality, its spontanaeity, its brashness, its ``anything goes'' 
attitude and its creativity. In the eyes of many, those qualities make 
Hong Kong one of the most exciting places on Earth.
  Hong Kong's current rulers are set on a path that risks killing the 
goose that laid that golden egg. That's a message they need to hear not 
only from foreign politicians but from the international business 
community, the techno cognoscenti, the investors and the economic and 
cultural globe-trotters, voting

[[Page 20674]]

with their feet and their pocketbooks. I encourage all such people who 
care about Hong Kong and about freedom to tell the Hong Kong 
authorities that, if Hong Kong sacrifices those things that make it 
unique and worth living in, we may as well set up shop in Shanghai.

                          ____________________