9 July 2003

China Labour Bulletin welcomes the decision not to press ahead with the implementation of the proposed legislation on Article 23. China Labour Bulletin urges the government to ensure not only that the legislation is delayed but that legislation on national security will not be introduced until Hong Kong has a transparent and responsible government elected by the people.

Hong Kong people remain rightly concerned at the use and abuse of similar legislation in China where thousands of people are imprisoned on grounds of subversion and state secrets. Hundreds more labour activists are labeled “subversives” and are detained simply for attempting to exercise their right to freedom of expression and association.

What are internationally held as fundamental workers’ rights - freedom of association and collective bargaining – are denied in mainland China. It is illegal to set up trade unions outside the auspice of the government-controlled All-China Federation of Trade Unions. Even appeals to that purpose are indictable offences. The recent sentencing of Yao Fuxin and Xiao Yunliang, two worker representatives from Liaoyang who led the protests of 50,000 Liaoyang workers in March 2002, on grounds of subversion reveal clearly how legitimate protests by workers against official corruption are classified as crimes against the state by the mainland authorities.

Many people are detained in China simply for supporting or publicizing the efforts of workers and others to defend their rights of freedom of expression and association. On such case is that of Xu Jian, a lawyer in Baotou City, Inner Mongolia. Xu provided legal counseling to workers involved in labour disputes. He also provided assistance in submitting labour dispute cases for arbitration as well as litigating cases. Despite the strictly legal basis of Xu's work, in July 2000, Xu was sentenced to 4-year imprisonment on charges of “inciting to subvert the state”. The verdict states that the judgment was made "in order to protect national security and uphold the people's democratic dictatorship and the socialist system". His case is just one of many which reveal the political repression done in the name of “protecting national security”.

In mainland China, the definitions and the use of laws on “subversion”, “national security” and “state secrets” are arbitrarily and politically determined. Legitimate opinions and actions can be branded as “subversive” on political grounds even though they are nothing more than the exercising of fundamental civil rights, opposing unfair policies or fighting for a basic livelihood. Reporting on workers’ protests from unofficial sources in the mainland is repressed and those attempting to publicize details of such protests are often detained. For example, in 1998, Zhang Shanguang released to the media abroad a news report on a demonstration staged by farmers and laid-off workers in his home province of Hunan. For this, he received a 10-year prison term on the charge of “passing intelligence to organizations outside China.

Although the government has recently made several welcome revisions to its legislation, there is still a great deal that needs to be revised if the bill is to comply with international human rights standards. For example, the implications of the current definitions of subversion and sedition for freedom of expression and the promotion of human rights and labour rights for mainland China remain unclear. One of the long term effects of the proposed legislation will be to smother the initiatives of Hong Kong groups in support of labour rights in China, for people may fear that such activities, including demonstrations in solidarity with Chinese workers, may be considered seditious or subversive.

The recent calls for an early enactment of national security laws to enable the Hong Kong government to then concentrate on resolving the economic and social issues affecting Hong Kong are both erroneous and misguided. The Hong Kong public has clearly shown that they want the government to act now to restore unity and economic prosperity to Hong Kong and that any attempt to push through legislation on Article 23 without first resolving these crucial issues will only further undermine the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong. Now is the time to allay public fears over the proposed legislation, restore the confidence of the public in the administration and to rebuild the unity of Hong Kong. Hong Kong is a World City that has been severely shaken in recent months both by economic recession and by SARS; the unity and prosperity of Hong Kong will be best achieved by heeding the calls for universal suffrage and then producing, in consultation with the public, a carefully drafted Bill on Article 23.

Only after 500,000 Hong Kong citizens took to the streets to demand a halt to the unnecessary and mindless rush towards enactment did the government take heed of public opposition to its proposed legislation on Article 23. The government must now listen to the voices calling for the establishment of universal suffrage in Hong Kong. Only then, under a freely elected legislature will the government truly be able to count on public participation in and support for legislation on Article 23.

According to Article 68 of the Basic law, the ultimate aim for Hong Kong is the election of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage. We now ask that the government moves ahead with the necessary steps to create universal suffrage and then only then move ahead with Article 23 legislation. Any move to introduce the proposed legislation without a popularly elected government will only reinforce the chasm between the government and the people.

For more details on Article 23 and CLB's comments please click here. [2]