"One Country, Two Systems" not at stake

***************************************

The Government's proposals to implement Article 23 of the Basic Law involving the proscription of organisations endangering national security will not threaten "One Country, Two Systems", the Acting Permanent Secretary for Security, Mr Timothy Tong, said today (December 16).

He was addressing fears voiced in some quarters that the proposed proscription mechanism would mean extending Mainland concepts of national security to Hong Kong.

He said: "First of all, it is incorrect to assume that Hong Kong would automatically, or be obliged, to ban the local branch of an organisation outlawed in the Mainland on national security grounds. The Secretary for Security must be satisfied by evidence of the local branch's subordination to the banned Mainland organisation, and must reasonably believe that it is necessary and proportionate in the interests of national security to ban the affiliated Hong Kong organisation."

"If a proscription is to be imposed, it must be done in accordance with the standards stipulated under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). In other words, the Secretary for Security's decision will be based entirely on the laws of Hong Kong and not the Mainland's. And the decision is subject to judicial review and appeal mechanism within the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region," Mr Tong added.

Referring to concerns that the proscription mechanism may constitute a violation of the freedom of association, Mr Tong pointed to Article 27 and Article 39 of the Basic Law, under which the freedom of association in Hong Kong is expressly guaranteed.

"It is, in fact, unlawful for the Government to exercise any of its powers in contravention of such provisions. In drafting the proposals, we have taken great care to ensure that they are consistent with the Basic Law, our Bill of Rights Ordinance, the ICCPR and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as applied to Hong Kong," Mr Tong stressed.

As regards worries over the proposed extended police powers to enter homes without a search warrant, he pointed out that there were already precedents of emergency police powers of entry, search and seizure of evidence, both in the existing local legislation and in other countries.

Under the proposal, such powers could only be exercised in case of great emergency by a senior police officer and under strict criteria to investigate a serious criminal act that has been or is being committed, Mr Tong explained.

He then turned to address worries that the enactment of Article 23 itself would have an adverse impact on people's freedom of expression. Mr Tong assured: "Diverse opinions and dissenting voices would never be repressed, no matter how critical they may be of the HKSAR Government or the Central Government, unless they constitute an incitement to a criminal action, i.e., the person has the intention of actually causing others to commit a crime, violence or public disorder. This is already unlawful under the present system anyway."

To ensure that the rights and freedoms enjoyed by local residents would not be diminished through the introduction of Article 23, Mr Tong said that prior to putting the proposals to implement Article 23 for public consultation, the HKSAR Government has studied in detail existing laws, common law principles, relevant laws and jurisprudence in other jurisdictions, as well as international standards on the protection of human rights.

"Our proposals will not affect the way of life in Hong Kong and are in full compliance with international conventions on human rights protection," he concluded.

End/Monday, December 16, 2002

NNNN