Last changed: December 23. 2002 5:32AM
HONG KONG - Saddled with economic woes, eroding confidence and a struggling political leadership, the last thing Hong Kong needs is doubt cast on the future of its democratic freedoms.
But the regional government's determination to push through a new anti-subversion law despite mounting public opposition has done precisely that.
Concern has been voiced ever since a consultation document on the new legislation was unveiled in September.
Disparate grouping of organizations ranging from Amnesty International and the World Association of Newspapers to multinational banks and chambers of commerce have weighed in with high-profile public statements of concern.
Earlier this month, thousands of marchers snaked their way through central Hong Kong, protesting against the proposal. Organizers called it the largest demonstration against the regional government since the British colonial era ended more than five years ago.
"It's not just the mass media and some politicians" who are opposed, said Martin Lee, co-founder of Hong Kong's Democratic Party and a prominent human rights activist. "It's bankers, lawyers, businesspeople and librarians. What more do you want?"
Even President Bush was drawn briefly into the debate, feeling compelled to underscore the importance of "preserving the rights of Hong Kong citizens" in comments made during Chinese President Jiang Zemin's visit to the United States in October.
Opponents of the law worry it could limit freedom of expression, including media freedom; restrict the flow of economic data; and even lead to a ban of groups, such as the Falun Gong spiritual movement [...]
More broadly, many critics also see the legislation as a potentially serious blow to the 5-year-old political experiment meant to protect democratic rights and rule of law in Hong Kong as it changed from a British colony to a quasi-autonomous special administrative region of China. That formula is known as "one country, two systems."
A three-month discussion period on the consultation document, which sketches out the planned law, is due to end later this month, after which a final version of the law will be published "as soon as practicable," according to the government. Because 36 of the 60 Hong Kong legislative council members are government appointees, passage is virtually guaranteed.
Still, there are signs the government wants to ease the pressure. It has indicated it would roll back proposed additions to police search and seizure powers and hinted it might be backing away from its refusal to publish a draft bill for discussion before presenting a final version for legislative approval.
More than any other factor, it is the Western-style freedoms and legal system that have set Hong Kong apart as an attractive Asian financial center and a preferred location for foreigners doing business in the vast but chaotic mainland Chinese market.
Hong Kong's secretary for security, Regina Ip, who is leading efforts to sell the measure, insists there are no sinister motives. She notes that the legislation is required under Article 23 of the Hong Kong's Basic Law, which stipulates that the regional government "shall enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People's government ...."
"We've got a constitutional obligation to enact those laws and that's what we're doing," Ip recently told a group of journalists and businesspeople. "It is certainly not our intention to crack down on press freedom. That's the last thing we want."
But the government's refusal so far to publish a working draft of the bill -- a so-called "white bill"-- coupled with questions about the timing of the legislation and the Hong Kong administration's commitment to democracy have fueled suspicion.
"Why now?" asked Lee.
The government counters that, given the years since Hong Kong reverted to Chinese sovereignty, it's time to act.
http://goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Site=GE&Date=20021223&Category=NEWS07&ArtNo=112230183&Ref=AR