**********************************************
The Government's proposals to implement Article 23 of the Basic Law cannot be used to repress political dissent as alleged by some critics because of the built-in safeguards against arbitrary application of the law, the Acting Permanent Secretary for Security, Mr Timothy Tong, assured today (December 22).
Responding to concerns on the creation of "political" crimes, Mr Tong said: "The mere expression of views, or mere reports or commentaries on views or acts of others, no matter how severe or critical, will not be criminalized, unless such expression, reports or commentary incites others to endanger national security through levying war, use of force or other serious unlawful means akin to terrorist activities."
"Take the offence of sedition, for example. There have been calls to limit its definition to what is strictly required to prohibit the incitement of rebellion by force. Our proposals are aimed at achieving just that. We are proposing, in fact, to reform the existing offences of sedition so that it becomes an offence only (a) to incite others to commit substantive offences of treason, secession or subversion; or (b) to incite others to violence or public disorder that seriously endangers the stability of the state or the HKSAR.
"In fact, the sedition offence has been in the Crimes Ordinance for a long time. Under our current statute law and common law, you could be found guilty of the sedition offence if you publish words or make a speech with a "seditious intention". We are proposing to repeal these archaic laws.
"Concurrently, we are also proposing to tighten the definition of seditious publications. A publication should be regarded as seditious only if it would likely incite people to commit the substantive offences of treason, secession or subversion," Mr Tong explained.
Regarding concerns on the possession of seditious publications as an offence, Mr Tong pointed out that there is already in the statute books an offence of possession of seditious publications (Cap 200 Section 10 (2)), which does not provide defence for legitimate use.
"The current proposal for the offence of sedition, in fact, should provide a welcome new defence of reasonable excuse to allow such legitimate uses as academic research or journalism. Additionally, our proposals are consistent with the requirements of the internationally accepted standards of individual rights and freedoms as prescribed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The proposed new definitions are significantly narrower than the existing offences and they are in line with or narrower than the laws in other major common law jurisdictions," he pointed out.
"Notwithstanding, the Government appreciates the concerns raised by academics and other professional groups such as librarians, and have undertaken to consider how best to allay these concerns."
Most common law jurisdictions, including some of the most liberal jurisdictions with a long democratic tradition like UK, USA, Australia and Canada, have sedition offences in their laws. Many of our neighbouring countries also have similar offences in their statute books.
While acknowledging that both the UK Law Reform Commission and the Law Reform Commission of Canada had recommended abolishing or repealing their respective sedition offence, Mr Tong said it is worth noting that both Commissions also proposed that it should be replaced by an incitement offence, which is what the government has proposed.
"But perhaps even more telling is the fact that both the UK and Canadian Governments have chosen to ignore their respective commission's recommendations," Mr Tong added.
End/Sunday, December 22, 2002
NNNN
