LETTER TO THE EDITOR, SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST:
And now I'm worried.
I hadn't been until i read your excellent in-depth analysis of Article 23 in today's SCMP.
I note the comment that punishment for various offences is "comparable with penalties in key common law jurisdictions" and I take your word for that.
What really worries me are the "offences for seditious intention", which your article says "….appears to be out of sync with other jurisdictions' punishments for it."
I've lived in Hong Kong for over thirty years*. For the last fifteen I've maintained a blog on Hong Kong and regional issues. I've often criticised local government officials, and at times mocked them. Same for Beijing officials. What are the chances that I could be found to be "inciting disaffection of public officers"? I also keep in touch with my occasional readers who are around the world, many in government offices. Again, what are the chances that could be seen a consorting with "evil" foreign forces?
The same goes for Letters to the Editor of this publication. I've often contributed, often criticising our "public officers". Many others do so as well. One rarely writes to praise government officials! The whole purpose is to call out what you see as shortcomings in governance, with the hope it may improve. Yet such criticism could now be captured in the Article 23 legislation.
I'm also worried on behalf of business interests, and for Hong Kong's place as a free and safe jurisdiction for international business.
When I worked in the Australian Consulate in Hong Kong, I was also a board member of the Australian Chamber of Commerce. Its main task is to lobby on behalf of Australian buisnsss interests to the Australian government. What are the chances that such lobbying could be seen to be "… collaboration with an outside force, to… influence the central and city governments over the formulation and execution of policy”? As warned about by Apollonia Lie Lee Ho-kei, deputy permanent secretary for security, in today's paper ("Regina Ip hits out at definitions of 'external forces'").
I was founder and manager of an education business Hong Kong, and established an Industry Federation to lobby on behalf of the private educators.* This involved writing submissions and attending meetings in Legco. Again, “seeking to influence the formulation of government policy”. (which we did successfully, by the way). This could be captured as sedition in the Article 23 legislation, as I read it.
From the perspective of one who has been deeply involved in HK business chambers and industry bodies, I predict serious concerns in the business community. Concerns that may well play into decisions about where to establish a regional office, for example. That is not stretching too long a bow.
And all for what? Because Security Secretary Paul Chan tells us there are "national security loopholes"? Please tell us what these are, Mr Chan! It seems to me we're doing pretty well since the National Security Law. At the very least, make Article 23 laws very specific to the loopholes you claim exist, not so wide as to catch foreign business people or individual online social media.
Please do ease our worries.
Peter Forsythe
Discovery Bay
Hong Kong
9308 0799
*1976-77: I attended the Chinese University of Hong Kong to study Mandarin, attached to the Australian Embassy in Beijing. 1990-96 I was with the Australian Consulate General in HK, as Executive General Manager of Austrade. In 2000 I founded and ran the Wall Street Institute training centres, and established the HK Federation of Private Educators as a lobby group for the imdustry
