(Clearwisdom.net)

The December 24 issue of Apple Daily reported that before the ending of consultation on enactment of Article 23, a survey conducted by the Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies of the Chinese University of Hong Kong showed that nearly 70% of Hong Kong citizens oppose enactment of Article 23; nearly 80% of the citizens suggest the government should extend the consultation or conduct a second round of consultation. The survey also pointed out that nearly 70% of the people interviewed think the argument around Article 23 has led to serious social polarization, while nearly 60% of the people worry that the situation might worsen. More than 55% of the people don't accept the suggestion made by the consultation document, for they think the suggestion is unclear, full of traps and harms human rights and freedom. Nearly 70% have no confidence in the government's promise. The survey also pointed out support for Hong Kong chief executive Tung Chee-Hwa has dropped to 47 points, the lowest in history.

Apple Daily published a social commentary on December 24, 2002 which stated: since an increasing number of organizations and citizens have publicly expressed concern and opposition to the enactment of Article 23 of the Basic Law, the district government officials and some politicians started to criticize organizations that oppose the enactment of Article 23, claiming that they are "emotional" and "irrational," as if they themselves had become guardians and spokespersons of "rationality."

In fact, they really want to derogate and avoid opposing views by playing word games, since if opposing views are "irrational," there would be no need for the government to mind or accept them.

In fact, that the government avoids the opposing views and the worries of citizens is really "emotional" and "irrational."

Just as we have repeatedly emphasized, rational discussion of Article 23 does not mean the public can only discuss the government's suggestions, nor does it mean the public can only amend the government's suggestions but can't be suspicious of it or negate it completely.

Moreover, Hong Kong does not have a political system in which the people can restrain the government's behavior; plus the judicial system's interpretation of the law is controlled by the people's congress, so the citizens' rights and freedom are not very effectively protected. In this situation, isn't it really rational that the citizens request the Hong Kong government to enact a law only after it has thoroughly implemented a democratic political system along with measures to protect the citizens' rights and freedom?

Article 23 of the Basic Law will affect the long-term competitive power of Hong Kong, the most basic human rights and freedoms of the Hong Kong citizens, and whether the unique lifestyle of Hong Kong will be able to last. Since it involves such critical issues, isn't it rational and sensible for the citizens to request the government to listen to their voices, conduct more consultations and conduct it in the form of a White Bill?

Although the citizens' concerns and questions are reasonable and rational, the district government refuses to listen to their voices and has failed to explain why the enactment of Article 23 cannot wait until after complete democratization, and why it cannot use a White Bill to consult with the public. It only emphasizes repeatedly that it will consult the public regarding the suggestions. Such an attitude that evades the citizens and turns a deaf ear is truly irrational.

Apple Daily published a commentary on December 23, 2002 that stated: because of enactment of Article 23 of the Basic Law, yesterday, tens of thousands of Hong Kong citizens joined in a political gathering, although the goal of this gathering was to support the enactment. Hong Kong is a polarized and open society in which many different opinions and political views exist. However, gatherings such as this one and the government's explanation did not eliminate the citizens' concerns and did not help to alleviate their worries about the enactment of Article 23.

Yesterday, people proposed the slogan, "everyone is responsible for national security" at the large gathering, and they think supporting Article 23 is the citizens' responsibility. From the surface, this claim seems reasonable and convincing. However, we should first see that a nation is not an abstract concept that lies above the people, nor is it a sacred item that the people must worship and pay homage to. To the contrary, the people are the main body of a nation, and to increase the people's welfare is the sole significance of a nation's existence. Therefore, the most fundamental part of protecting national security is to protect the people's safety, their rights and freedoms from encroachment. If the so-called protecting national security means hurting the people's rights and sacrificing their freedoms, then everyone is responsible for opposing instead of supporting such enactment of law, which claims to protect national security. Just think about it. Would there be any nations without people?

Even if there are rational and necessary causes for enactment of a law to protect national security, the decision and the whole enactment process should not be done by one or a few political parties in power. Instead, the government should allow the citizens to thoroughly participate in discussion. Only by doing this can we make sure national security laws won't become the ruler's or certain political parties' tools, and only by doing this can we avoid as much as possible enacting laws that will hurt the people's freedoms and rights.

However, the government and the organizations that held the gathering yesterday both opposed the use of a White Bill to consult the public. How can the consultation reach the most people and how can the citizens conduct a most thorough discussion regarding related laws without a White Bill? Without sufficient consultation and discussion, the citizens cannot carry out their responsibility of participating in the enactment process and supervising the enactment, so wouldn't "everyone is responsible for national security" become an empty slogan?

We believe the pro-Article 23 organizations have the right to hold gatherings to support the enactment. However, we also believe it's necessary for the citizens to express their worries and concerns regarding Article 23. Because if Article 23 is enacted according to the government's suggestions, only activities supporting the ruler and government will be allowed to take place, and opposing voices and gatherings will lose their right to exist. Faced with such menacing threat, how can the citizens remain silent?

It was stated in the Li Yi column in the December 24, 2002 issue of Apple Daily, that a reader nicknamed Bian Zhou left a message on the internet message board of the Li Yi column that said, "After reading newspapers around the world, [we see] that all protest parades are caused by dissatisfaction with current situation(s). People such as those in Hong Kong who held a parade to support the government cannot really be found anywhere else in the world."

That is so true. However, we can still find other places in the world in which such strange phenomena take place, because a dictator in an autocratic country often encourages his people to gather in support of his policies. How many similar gatherings have taken place in the former Soviet Union, and China during the past 52 years? Indeed, gatherings and parades in support of government policies are nowhere to be found in Western democratic countries and the free world.

Using the U.S. as an example, according to surveys, after 9.11, an overwhelming number of people supported the U.S. government's attack on Afghanistan and Iraq. However, in major U.S. cities, only anti-war parades could be seen. Why didn't the supporting people hold a parade? Because the government's policies already reflected their will, and they had no dissatisfactions and nothing to complain to the government about, so they didn't hold any supporting parades.

The gathering held in Victoria Park on December 22 in support of Article 23 was not a protest against the government. It was for supporting the government and also a protest against people who oppose government policies. This type of pro-government gathering exists only in autocratic regions. It was not held by voluntary participation but by organized mobilization.

... ...

December 24, 2002