【明報專訊】Every July 1 Hong Kong sees a massive march(遊行). Hongkongers joined the first massive July 1 march as a response to the National Security (Legislative Provisions) Bill (《國家安全(立法條文)條例草案》), which was withdrawn on 5 September 2003.
1. The Article
Discussion of making a law as required by Article 23 of the Basic Law gained momentum in 2000. Then, Chief Executive (CE) Tung Chee-hwa (董建華)and officials including Secretary for Justice Elsie Leung (梁愛詩)and Secretary for Security Regina Ip (葉劉淑儀)looked into possible methods of doing so.
The Article states, ''The HKSAR shall enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason (叛國) secession (分裂國家), sedition ( 煽動叛亂), subversion(顛覆)against the Central People's Government, or theft of state secrets, to prohibit foreign political organisations or bodies from conducting political activities in the Region, and to prohibit political organisations or bodies of the Region from establishing ties with foreign political organisations or bodies.''
2. The Consultation
A consultation document entitled Proposals to implement Article 23 of the Basic Law (《實施基本法第二十三條》) was released on 24 September 2002. It mentioned the seven crimes listed in the Article, each of which was clearly defined.
Though Regina Ip claimed that the proposals were in compliance with international covenants (公約), the definitions of those crimes were controversial, as they might curtail (削減) the freedom of expression. For instance, according to the document, a person who distributes information on Hong Kong-Beijing relations may be charged with stealing state secrets. Regina Ip then tried to reassure the public, saying, ''Only expressions that cause social anxiety count as sedition''.
Moreover, Elsie Leung emphasised that the definitions were based on existing provisions and were not targeted at any groups. It was proposed that the police should have extra powers in conducting investigations.
3. Responses and July 1 March
Various stakeholders had their own stances. Citizens were worried that the National People's Congress Standing Committee(全國人大常委會)would again interpret Basic Law provisions(條款).
Journalists feared that they would be found guilty for reporting on mainland and Taiwan affairs. Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor(香港人權監察)criticised the proposals, saying the police would override the judiciary if they had those extra powers.
On the other hand, the DAB(民建聯)took the view that the definitions in the document were so clear that none would be prosecuted because of what they said or believed. The Hong Kong Bar Association (大律師公會) agreed that the proposals were in line with the spirit of the common law system.
Foreign bodies voiced their concerns too. While it acknowledged the SAR government's effort to consult the public, the UK government said it would keep an eye on the matter.
Forbes (《福布斯》) said that such legislation would ''create a cloud of uncertainty'' over Hong Kong's market, and foreign investors would not want to see any erosion in its legal system.
4. Withdrawal of the Article 23 Bill
The government tabled a bill to the Legco for reading in February 2003. Hundreds of thousands of citizens took to the streets on 1 July 2003. Regina Ip resigned on July 16. On September 5, CE Tung Chee-hwa announced the government's decision to withdraw the bill and focus on the SAR's economic development. Because of the controversy, Hong Kong people have become more sensitive to restrictions on the freedom of speech (言論自由).
