HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
July 4, 2003 Tuesday, an estimated 500,000 Hong Kong people (from a territory of only 6.7 million) gathered in what was the biggest public protest since 1 million people marched after the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, and what may turn out to be one of the last free acts of popular expression against the Hong Kong government. At issue was proposed Article 23 of HKSAR’s Basic Law which would stiffen the penalties for the stealing of state secrets from the PRC, give police wide powers to search without warrants, and to criminalize acts of “subversion”- the definition of which would be largely up to the central government in Beijing. Despite repeated attempts to by the area Governor Tung Chee-hwa to sweep the issue under the rug by saying that it won’t change things much, and his repeated claims that “the majority of Hong Kong supports the bill (despite independent polls consistently showing about 65-78% against), the HK people are largely terrified of the bill. They can see how Beijing rules in the PRC proper. At issue is Beijing’s promise that, after the handover of HK to the PRC from Britain, Hong Kong would enjoy 50 years of Autonomous rule under the mantle of “one country- two systems.” Over the past six years, the people of HK have viewed with alarm the gradual encroachment of PRC power over their government- banning press releases, banning people from other countries going to HK to protest the detentions of Falun Gong members, and the overturning of a Hong Kong court decision. The major objections to the bill are as follows: 1) Beijing could easily use the subversion act as a means to halt all criticism in Hong Kong. Hong Kong is currently the base for many Chinese reform groups, as well as the staging ground for most protests for Falun Gong, Taiwanese independence, Free Tibet, etc. 2) The business market will suffer. Many financial analysts fear that quarterly reports, often highly critical of Mainland economic policy will have to be “cleaned up” under threat of detainment. If Hong Kong were under the same restrictive rules as the Mainland, considering the higher cost of operation in HK, no foreign business in its right mind would stay there- there would be large-scale capital flight to Shanghai and other Mainland ports. 3) The silencing of free press. The passing of Article 23 was actually a condition for the handover, but must HKers had convinced themselves that it was something that could be done at the end of the 50 years of autonomous rule. With a Beijing-backed legislature and governor, the article’s passage is almost assured. For both our business interest in the former colony, and for appreciation of the plight of 6.7 million people struggling to preserve their freedom, the west must redouble their efforts to get China to back off pressuring the passage of Article 23. ------------ Email Clay H. Williams: klei1842@hotmail.com Comment on this column in the forum. ------------ |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
