[extracts from from SCMP 5 Septmber 2003]
ARTICLE 23: THE WITHDRAWAL
Although China Labour Bulletin welcomes the withdrawal of the proposed Article 23 legislation, we remain concerned that the government may plan to reintroduce another set of draconian proposals at a later date, without making any moves towards universal suffrage.
The following extracts reveal how NGOs and political parties view the recent decision to withdraw the proposals until later.
The Democratic Party welcomed the withdrawal, saying it was a victory for the half a million people who took to the streets on July 1. But party chairman Yeung Sum warned that Tung Chee-hwa would reintroduce the same package for a vote once the public sentiment improved.
"We are worried that this is just a delaying tactic until public grievances have been diluted by a better economic atmosphere," he said.
The party was adamant that the government should defer enacting the national security legislation until the chief executive and the legislature were democratically elected.
Martin Lee Chu-ming suggested co-operating with the Bar Association and the Article 23 Concern Group to produce a white bill based on a "minimalist" approach, only covering the minimum requirement in the Basic Law.
The Democratic Party said it would initiate talks with the working group for a comprehensive survey on whether the public preferred a white bill and delaying enactment of the bill until universal suffrage had been fully implemented.
Eric Li Ka-cheung, of the Breakfast Group, said the withdrawal was acceptable.
"I think the message is that we are not rushing for another deadline in July. I think this is acceptable. We should concentrate on the economic recovery first," he said.
He said he had no particular views on whether a white bill should be produced, adding that it would be absurd for anyone to suggest that a draconian bill could be forced through when the economy picked up again. "This is just a conspiracy theory. The final version will still have to be one that is acceptable to the public," he said.
Executive Councillor Tsang Yok-sing, leader of the Democratic Alliance for Betterment of Hong Kong [a pro-Beijing political party and supporter of the current administration], welcomed the government's move. But he denied that the decision would benefit his party in the upcoming elections.
"The reality is that the original target of the bill's passage on July 9 was not workable. Why don't we say that the government has listened to public opinion and needs to consult more, rather than bowing to pressure?" said Mr. Tsang, who is leading a party delegation to visit state leaders in Beijing.
Miriam Lau Kin-yee, vice-chairwoman of the Liberal Party, said her party respected the government's decision, although it believes the bill should not be shelved. She said the future legislative process should be based on the amendments already made.
The Frontier said it was worried that the government was only playing up its strategy in order to help pro-government parties in the upcoming polls. "Draconian legislation might return after the elections are over," it said.
Catholic Bishop Joseph Zen Ze-kiun, who has been a vocal critic of the bill, said the government should have withdrawn the bill much earlier in light of public opposition. He said there was a political agenda behind the move, which was to help secure votes for the DAB in the coming elections.
The Hong Kong News Executives Association welcomed another round of consultation, while the Hong Kong Journalists' Association expressed concern that clauses which threaten press freedoms would show up in a future draft.
Although the current administration could have tried to reintroduce its proposed bill, it would still have faced great public and political opposition, and this is probably the prime reason behind the move to withdraw.
There are also two sets of elections approaching - for the district councils in November and the Legislative Council next September and Tung was apparently facing pressure from his supporting parties to ensure that Article 23 was not high profile so as to ensure people did not withhold their votes because of Article 23. Strategically, the decision will considerably ease the political pressure on the Democratic Alliance for Betterment of Hong Kong, even though the DAB will still have to pay a price for its support of Article 23 and criticism of the pro-democracy marches.
The motive for the withdrawal of the Article 23 legislation was purely political: to rescue the government's allies and stop pro-democracy candidates winning a majority in next year's Legco polls, analysts said yesterday.
The tactic might succeed, they said. It could ease the pressure on the Democratic Alliance for Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB), the party that has suffered most from the Article 23 controversy.
Ma Ngok, assistant professor of social science at the University of Science and Technology, said he could not think of any other reason for the bill being pulled other than concerns over the DAB's chances of success in next September's election.
"What Tung [Chee-hwa] said today was completely opposite to what he said on July 5. At that time, he insisted the bill be passed before July 9 so [the government could] concentrate [its] efforts on reviving the economy," Professor Ma said.
The government wanted to shift the public agenda to the economy instead of democratisation to avoid increasing the pro-democracy camp's chances of success at the polls, he said. Professor Ma said he believed the withdrawal of the National Security Bill would have little impact on November's district council elections because voters would be more concerned with community issues.
Li Pang-kwong, of Lingnan University, said the changes in Hong Kong's political landscape triggered by the 500,000 people who marched on July 1 had made the Hong Kong and mainland governments nervous.
"They feared next year's Legco elections would be [dominated] by the opposition parties. They decided to take a drastic step to prevent this from happening," Professor Li said.
Despite the withdrawal, he believed the legislation would be exploited by the democracy camp in the run-up to the polls.
While debate on the most contentious issue dividing the community would now subside, pro-democracy activists are confident of keeping up the momentum of the campaign for democracy and constitutional reform.
Richard Tsoi Yiu-cheong, spokesman for the Civil Human Rights Front which organised the July 1 march and a July 9 rally outside Legco, said he believed the public's eagerness for change would not diminish.
"In our July 1 march, besides `anti-Article 23', another slogan we adopted was `returning political power to the people', which hasn't been achieved yet," Mr Tsoi said.
However, it remains to be seen as to how far the new proposals will differ and Pro-Beijing figures have already warned against turning the national security bill into a "paper tiger" if the government has to make bottomless concessions to pass it. This is also the last thing Beijing wants, even though - publicly - it has promised a free hand for the special administrative region government to decide the timetable and content of the bill. That has cleared the way for the government to go back to square one.
For its part, the central government has shown pragmatism and better understanding of the sentiments of the public over Article 23 legislation in the wake of the July 1 uproar. Given a choice between filling a constitutional hole in the Basic Law and the political expediency of salvaging a lame-duck administration, the national leaders have, sensibly, opted for the latter.
By putting on hold the legislative process for at least one year, the Hong Kong and Beijing governments hope a gradual economic recovery and the return of feel-good sentiment will help create a more peaceful and harmonious atmosphere for public debate on the anti-subversion legislation. Yesterday Mr. Tung was telling a half-truth when he said the withdrawal would allow "breathing space" for the community to discuss Article 23. It is the government that badly needs more breathing space as it braces for tough battles on the political and economic fronts.