My letter tackling Philip Fang's brutish article received more positive stars than any letter this year, averaging 4.5 out of 5 stars. From a reader re that letter, one of a number in support:
Great letter to the SCMP. Thanks for sticking up for Hong Kong.Most other letters in response to Fang's article take him on, but one on Monday supports Fang's line and the introduction of the so-called "Article 23" legislation [*] in Hong Kong: that is, legislation to outlaw "treason, secession, sedition, subversion..." etc. It is a requirement of Hong Kong's Basic Law, though the timing of implementation is up to Hong Kong. Suspicion of the intent of the proposed law is high in Hong Kong and the last time a serious endeavour was made to implement it on the 1st of July 2005, some 500,000 people took to the streets (I was there). The concern was (and is) that that in Beijing's eyes -- and hence in the eyes of Hong Kong's Chief Executive, who hews closely to Beijing's wishes -- "treason, secession" and the rest would weave a net with very fine holes: many could get caught in it, simply by exercising their right to free speech, a right in Hong Kong that's been sacrosanct to date and freely exercised (unlike in China, where it is not, despite being guaranteed in their constitution)
“Give me a break.” Yes, give us all a break.
I guess you knew that Philip Fang is Anson Chan’s younger brother. [P: actually, no I didn't and wonder what he's doing attacking his well-known sister. Happy families. Not]
Now it appears there's a move again to put the promulgation of Article 23 back on the front burner. Fang's article pushes for this, and a reader, Peter Lok, shines his shoes. Lok's letter below and mine yesterday in response below that:
Article 23 is aimed at unruly mob [South China Morning Post, 21 Nov 2011]
Article 23 is aimed at unruly mob [South China Morning Post, 21 Nov 2011]
In his letter ("HK people are genuine patriots", November 16), Professor Steve Tsang refers to Deng Xiaoping.
Yet he deliberately ignores the fact that Article 23 was written into the Basic Law also with the blessing of Deng and those who succeeded him - in an orderly transfer of power, I may add.
There are Hong Kong people and there are Hong Kong people. Article 23 is not directed at those who genuinely "work for the respect, dignity, rights and betterment of one's fellow citizens", as Professor Tsang put it, and for the good of China as a whole.
It is directed at the many rabble-rousers against whom Deng saw the need to insist that there should be a People's Liberation Army garrison in Hong Kong.
I have heard Professor Tsang on the radio and assume from his accent that he hails from Hong Kong so his rabble-rousing views do not surprise me.
Peter Lok, Chai Wan
Yet he deliberately ignores the fact that Article 23 was written into the Basic Law also with the blessing of Deng and those who succeeded him - in an orderly transfer of power, I may add.
There are Hong Kong people and there are Hong Kong people. Article 23 is not directed at those who genuinely "work for the respect, dignity, rights and betterment of one's fellow citizens", as Professor Tsang put it, and for the good of China as a whole.
It is directed at the many rabble-rousers against whom Deng saw the need to insist that there should be a People's Liberation Army garrison in Hong Kong.
I have heard Professor Tsang on the radio and assume from his accent that he hails from Hong Kong so his rabble-rousing views do not surprise me.
Peter Lok, Chai Wan
Mine [not yet published at time of writing]:
Philip Fang’s article on the allegedly “ungrateful” Hong Kong people (“Brat in the family”, Nov 9) has prompted quite a response, mostly in contention with his thesis.
But a Fang supporter, Peter Lok, claims that Article 23 is “directed at the many rabble-rousers” in Hong Kong. (“Article 23 is aimed at unruly mob”, Letters 21 Nov), one of whom he claims is Professor Steve Tsang who wrote a letter taking Philip Fang to task.
Actually, Article 23 is not aimed at “rabble-rousers” but at “any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People’s Government, or theft of state secrets...”.
It is the broad reading of the likes of Lok and Fang, equating those speaking their minds (“rabble rousing”) with such acts of treason and sedition, that gives many Hong Kong people pause. Surely we should be concerned at such views; views which would silence valid free speech, by simply labelling it “rabble rousing” and hence — by their unilateral extension — “treasonous”.
Look at Lok’s claim that Professor Tsang Is a “rabble rouser” simply because he “hails from Hong Kong”. That’s ad hominem of the worst sort, and not the basis for rational discourse.
Peter F
But a Fang supporter, Peter Lok, claims that Article 23 is “directed at the many rabble-rousers” in Hong Kong. (“Article 23 is aimed at unruly mob”, Letters 21 Nov), one of whom he claims is Professor Steve Tsang who wrote a letter taking Philip Fang to task.
Actually, Article 23 is not aimed at “rabble-rousers” but at “any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People’s Government, or theft of state secrets...”.
It is the broad reading of the likes of Lok and Fang, equating those speaking their minds (“rabble rousing”) with such acts of treason and sedition, that gives many Hong Kong people pause. Surely we should be concerned at such views; views which would silence valid free speech, by simply labelling it “rabble rousing” and hence — by their unilateral extension — “treasonous”.
Look at Lok’s claim that Professor Tsang Is a “rabble rouser” simply because he “hails from Hong Kong”. That’s ad hominem of the worst sort, and not the basis for rational discourse.
Peter F
[* ]Article 23:
The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People's Government, or theft of state secrets, to prohibit foreign political organizations or bodies from conducting political activities in the Region, and to prohibit political organizations or bodies of the Region from establishing ties with foreign political organizations or bodies.
