Jump to content

Talk:Hong Kong Basic Law Article 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which draft law?

[edit]

This article seems to stop with the first draft National Security law. Because of the July 1 march and subsequent events, the proper draft law should be the revised one.

27 June 2003: http://www.legco.gov.hk/lcsearch/showdoc.htm?mylink=/search/marker?s=15&o=2&t=2&a=30&r=2&k=1,&g=0&PROPERTY=2;&MERGEFIELD=-&CODECONVERT=-&SORTFIELDS=-&SIM_START=1&SIM_NUM=10&REL_START=1&REL_NUM=10&LINK=-&REDIRECTTO=-&PATHLINK=-&p=%22National%20Security%22&c=17,1&i=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.legco.gov.hk%2Fyr02-03%2Fenglish%2Fhc%2Fpapers%2Fhc0627cb2-2646e.pdf&j=4905&v=&n=&link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.legco.gov.hk%2Fyr02-03%2Fenglish%2Fhc%2Fpapers%2Fhc0627cb2-2646e.pdf (the revised draft starts on p. 48). DOR (HK) (talk) 06:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Economic situation

[edit]

On July 1, 2003, approximately 200,000 - 500,000 people demonstrated against Article 23 by marching from Victoria Park, Causeway Bay to Central Government Offices in Central.

In fact most demonstrators were calling the government to improve the economic situations. Only some of the demonstrators were really concerned with Article 23. Another thing is that Hong Kong actually is quite divided on this matter. But unfortunetely this article only emphasized one side of view. More work could be done. --Formulax 09:36 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It really looks like it was the other way round! olivier 10:00 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Of course there are many people against the Article 23, but most people are more concerned with economic problems. --Formulax 06:34 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The way you expressed it makes it sound like the concerns around article 23 is only shared by a minority of people. I don't think that it is the case. olivier 10:30 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Of course it is a great concern for many people. I just want to say that in the demonstration, more people were concerned with economic reasons rather than Article 23. --Formulax 02:36 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
As someone who watched the march and talked to participants afterwards, I can assure you that most people were concerned with Art 23. A DBB politician said in a TV interview during the march "These people are misled about Art. 23". The entire crowd howled. Setting aside my anecdotal evidence, I understand that today's South China Morning Post stated that most people there were "well-educated" and concerned about Art. 23. - David Stewart 04:33 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)
There is no denying that the first half of 2003, when the anti-national security protests took place, was an extremely difficult time. The economy was in a technical depression and people were scared because of SARS. To suggest that the July 1, 2003, protest march had only one source and that that source was opposition to the national security law, is bias. -- DOR 20 Nov 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.176.69.125 (talk) 05:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong

[edit]

Now that's really wrong:

While supporters point out that many other countries have similar anti-subversion laws, political analysts point out that such countries have democratically elected legislators: if the laws are abused, then the electorate can express its opposition by ousting the legislators in the next election. In Hong Kong, however, Tung Chee-hwa was appointed by a college of individuals (some of which are pro-China tycoons such as Li Kai-shing and his son Richard Li) appointed by the People's Republic of China. There is no democratic election for the Chief Executive, and so the electorate has no ability to oust the Chief Executive if the powers are abused.
Hong Kong is the only sub-national government in the world to have both the right and the responsibility to enact its own national security law. The alternative, practiced in every other country on earth, is to be subject to the national national security law. -- DOR 20 Nov 2007.

That's npovlessly claiming that Hong Kong is less democratic than all other countries with such laws. That's rather interesting statement, as in Europe (except maybe Turkey and some former Soviet Republics) and most other "democratic" countries there are no laws like that.

Actually this is quite incorrect. Britain has the official Secrets Act, and pretty much ever nation in the world has some sort of law against treason. If you read the text of the law, its really not all that bad. The problem is that 1) it requires some trust in the people who are going to implement the law 2) the whole process for drafting the law was closed to the public which decreases trust, and 3) people in Hong Kong strongly dislike Tung for reasons that have nothing to do with 23.
The guy has no political sense at all.

Roadrunner

On the other hand, such laws would be typical for countries with even less democracy than Hong Kong. Please elaborate if you want to move it back.

Hong Kong really isn't very democratic, although the events of the last few hours have shown that it is more democratic than most people thought.

Taw 17:34 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I tried to summarize what the argument was. The basic issue is to justify why people should be opposed to the current drafts of laws, while they are nowhere near as draconian as the laws that the British had when they were ruling Hong Kong. Under the British, the Governor could theoretically declare an emergency and pass any law that he wanted and censor pretty much he wanted.

Roadrunner 6 Jul 2003

As the person who drafted that paragraph (indeed, the orginal article), I think its a fair summation of one of the chief arguments against the law. Politicians in other countries are accoountable to voters: here in HK, they are not, except to a collage of Beijing appointees. Its true about the British having similar powers when they ruled HK, but the British have a democracy back home to keep the UK government accountable. No such thing exists in the PRC. - David Stewart 04:33 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I got the argument from Martin Lee's web site. Ironically, the events of the based week have damaged that argument, since they've shown that both Beijing and the HK government really are strongly constrained by public opinion. Roadrunner 7 Jul 2003
I think that's true, but because of the economic consequences for the city. Railroading a a law through over such strong public opinion would have a negative impact on sovereign risk assessment, perhaps. But, in any event, public opinion is not the same thing as universal emancipation and the consequences of a free and fair election. There is no direct political consequence for Tung if he'd pushed it through. - David Stewart 06:21 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)
There isn't for Tung, but it has to go through

Legco, and the reaction of the Liberals and the DAB is certainly being shaped by the fact that they are going to have to answer to the voters. There's even an electoral consequence for Beijing, in that they don't want a Legco dominated by the DP. - Roadrunner

I get the very strong impression that there is a problem with trusting the government, not with a law against treason, sedition, etc.

Patriotic instincts

[edit]
The patriotic instincts of Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa, rather than a desire to assert Hong Kong's separate identity, have been the main motivating factor in introduction of the bill. Tung himself owes a personal debt to the PRC government: his family's shipping conglomerate Orient Overseas was bailed out for the sum of $US120 million by Chinese government-owned companies in the 1980s.

Removed this since this wasn't the main motivating factor. HK is constitutionally required to pass these laws.

I'm of the opinion it should be retained, but modified. Most people in Hong Kong (from my pov as a resident here) view Tung's backing of the laws despite public opinion because of his personal debt to the PRC govt. Maybe edited to say, "Many people in Hong Kong believe..." - David Stewart 04:03 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Added it back in modified form. One thing that is remarkable to me is how politically inept Tung is. He could have easily had smooth passage of Article 23 legislation had he tried really hard to address public fears about the bill.

Roadrunner

I think Tung is politically inept (he ran for CE last year with no platform) but with even reasonable men like the Solicitor General Bob Allcock incapable of reassuring the public that this won't mean knocks on the door in the night by secret police, its difficult to see what else they could do. There is a good reason why Art 23. wasn't fleshed at pre-handover - too difficult. - David Stewart 06:21 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)
The basic problem is that Tung and the HK government has been utterly dismissive of public opinion and input and that attitude has poisioned the whole process. It's possible that Tung was under strong pressure from Beijing, but even in this case, I think Tung grossly underestimated the influence that HK public opinion has on Beijing, and Beijing's willingness to support him.
It will be interesting to see what happens next.

Roadrunner

I actually think public opinion frightens Tung, and that he doesn't understand it. Look at his reaction to those opinion polls from HKU a few years back, and then look at how badly he tried to alter some opinion polls on Art.23 more recently. He is just not a natural democrat. - David Stewart 08:49 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Mrs. Ip has been criticised by the press and religious groups for her zealousness in pursuing the implementation of the legislation. In a politically clumsy move, Mrs. Ip asserted that because the ordinary people would not understand the legal language, there was no point in consulting them on it - in other words, because a few may not comprehend, let's keep everyone in the dark. This comment illustrates the extent to which authoritarian reflexes have become the natural habit of Hong Kong's unelected ruling elite.

sounds very much like what's been happening in the states recently with the elected elite. The politicians can cry 'national safety', 'threat of terrorism' and quietly shuffle billions of dollars into rich friends pockets while passing nat'l legislation protecting Americans from hobgoblins in the dark...case in point nullification of campaign finance laws with recent national security legislation.
So? He is also constitutionally required to give us universal suffrage and I don't see any action there. F 11:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tidying up

[edit]

I am going to work on some tidying up, elaboration and reorganization of the topic, so that it would be more systematic. This includes:

  • Introduces Article 23, backgrounds, etc.
  • Briefly describe the proposals
  • Timeline of the implementation
  • Both sides of arguments (probably in another page), for both the process and procedure, including
    • White bill vs. blue bill
    • Debate on timing
    • Debate on compendium
  • Short treatment on the outcome.
  • External links to a number of sites and articles.

While I would retain the present content as much as possible, the present treatment seemed to elaborate too much on some particular points, which may need to be summarized to give a proportionate treatment to other points in the overall debate. Some NPOVing also seemed necessary.

I also consider it more appropriate to put political readouts / speculations in a separate context.

I would work on it in pieces and post omitted texts here.

Hlaw 18:00, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Cleanup notes

[edit]

I posted this article on Wikipedia:Cleanup because it needs to be re-factored and copyedited. I also had the following notes: 

* Does "Bishop Zen" have a first name?
* President Hu is the President of China?
* "is the strong desire to put on a good face before Taiwan's 2004 Presidential Election, hoping to increase public opinion there in favor of Chinese reunification." -> this happened in March, I think.
* Clearly link to the full text of Article 23.

-- Beland 01:04, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes this needs extensive cleanup. For your questions: 

* Bishop Joseph Zen
* Hu Jintao is the President of the People's Republic of China since March 15, 2003
* Taiwan's 2004 election was held on March 20, 2004
* Official HK government page is here: [1].

Article 23 itself is short and can be pasted inside the article: "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People's Government, or theft of state secrets, to prohibit foreign political organizations or bodies from conducting political activities in the Region, and to prohibit political organizations or bodies of the Region from establishing ties with foreign political organizations or bodies"

-- Hlaw 03:41, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Law or not?

[edit]

So is Article 23 actually in the Basic Law or not? Because it is part of it according to Wikisource. [2] It's unclear to me if the bill was to add the article or to enact it, but then if it was in the Basic Law before it would already be enforced? Anyone who can explain things would be a big help. --Joowwww (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Art. 23 gives the HKSAR government the power to enact its own laws regarding state security issues. In a sense, the British-inherited statutes on the books are under the authority of Art. 23, because they can only be altered by the HKSAR, and not the central government, thanks to Art. 23. Furthermore, the wording shall is considered to be a statement that the HKSAR government has a responsibility to enact its own legislation to substitute the British statutes.
It's like a law that says "companies shall make rules on the cleanliness of employees." It doesn't specify whether employees must wash their hands after using the loo, but the company has a responsibility to make rules on the matter. Kelvinc (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hong Kong Basic Law Article 23. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hong Kong Basic Law Article 23. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hong_Kong_Basic_Law_Article_23&oldid=1212907286"