Congressional Record: June 27, 2003 (Senate)
Page S8863-S8865
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself and Mr. Kyl):
S.J. Res. 14. A joint resolution expressing support for freedom in
Hong Kong; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a joint resolution
for myself and Senator Kyl regarding the United States' commitment to
preserving freedom in Hong Kong. It is not simply the responsibility of
the United States, but also of the Administration of Tung Chee Hwa,
Hong Kong's chief executive and the People's Republic of China.
This resolution emphasizes an isolated event taking place on July 9
of this year--the passage of draconian laws on sedition, subversion,
and theft of state secrets. This law evokes something out of one of the
novels of George Orwell. Just as the resolution states, the law, as now
drafted, is vague and overly broad in its definitions of subversion,
sedition, and official secrets.
The Secretary of Security, an appointee of the Government of the
People's Republic of China, would have very broad authority to ban
organizations not approved by his Beijing masters. Nothing less than
the survival of
[[Page S8864]]
the Catholic Church in China and the Falun Gong, a quasi-religious
practice that emphasizes breathing and meditation, are at stake with
this law. Beijing has clearly targeted these and many other groups
promoting democracy and human rights.
In addition, the Secretary of Security would have the authority to
waive the right to notice and the right to be heard--something that
person could execute on a whim. This horrendous bill would allow the
Hong Kong Government to prosecute members of the news media for
publishing information that would arbitrarily be deemed a "state
secret."
These "state secrets" might include Hong Kong-Mainland cooperation
on the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome or SARS. If China handled a
new outbreak of some contagion the same way it handled SARS, I would
think the people of Hong Kong should know that their lives might be in
danger because of the Government's negligence.
This is the extreme case, however, it must be made clear to my
colleagues, and to the world, that the legislation to be voted on July
9, in Hong Kong would create a severe chilling effect on the press to
freely report information. The Hong Kong Journalists Association, the
Overseas Press Club, and the Committee to Protect Journalists all
oppose this bill.
In addition, the legislation would strip other provisions contained
in a current Hong Kong law, the Societies Ordinance, of due process
protections. On top of that, the Hong Kong police would have new powers
to search without having a warrant. Those two provisions are the
bedrock of a free society. How does the Hong Kong government think it
can get away with this?
It assumes that it can ride out the cries of outrage from inside Hong
Kong and throughout the world. I hope that Chief Executive Tung's
administration understands that this resolution only represents the
beginning. Sir, if you read these comments, please understand you are
on the losing side of history.
Hong Kong has been remarkably free in the last six years. That is a
true statement. The fact that Mr. Tung and his colleagues fail to
understand is that without these freedoms, Hong Kong will surely fail.
Unfortunately, the People's Republic of China has increasingly
interfered in Hong Kong's independent judiciary, intimidated the media
to induce self-censorship, and excluded visitors who disagree with the
Chinese Communist Party's policies.
The Hong Kong SAR Government, encouraged by the Government of the
People's Republic of China, has eroded Hong Kong's political
independence, international prestige, and its appeal as a business and
financial hub of Asia. Recently, the American Chamber of Commerce in
Hong Kong reversed its position regarding the bill saying that it would
be a disaster for business in Hong Kong.
The South China Morning Post reported: "In a letter to all
legislators, chamber chairman James Thompson said the bill contained
worrying provisions, such as that seeking to ban organisations. These
would jeopardise Hong Kong's distinctive features, in particular its
transparent legal system and free flow of information."
Similarly, the International Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong in its
submission to the Hong Kong Government opposing the bill stated "We
regret that the Administration has chosen to ignore our request, and
that of many others in Hong Kong for a second round of public
consultation before bringing the matter to the Legislative Council, and
rigidly following its own timetable.
They continued saying, "The Consultation Document is complicated
enough, and has taken us much time to prepare a response. The Bill is
even more difficult to study as it relates to a number of existing
ordinances, if nothing else. Yet we have to rush to forward our
comments to meet a deadline. This timetable also puts undue pressure on
the Legislative Council to finish scrutiny in a hurry. For a matter of
such great significance, it is to be regretted that it should have to
be rushed through at the risk of sacrificing quality."
The lifeblood of Hong Kong's existence, its business community,
opposes the bill and the Hong Kong Government pressured by Beijing
fails to understand why there is all this outrage. The business
community in this fascinating center for finance, shipping and media is
well known for its cozy relationship with Mr. Tung, his cabinet and
other officials, and even for being close with Beijing to get the
favorable treatment it receives in China.
Yet, this community, arguably the most influential in Hong Kong's
affairs, is out right opposed to the effort to suppress freedom in Hong
Kong. It is not such a large leap to understand that Hong Kong's
vibrancy results from its freedom.
I underline these concerns for my colleagues today in the hope that
it will give pause to legislators in Hong Kong, and deter this and any
future assaults on freedom in this important territory.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S.J. Res. 14
Whereas Hong Kong has long been the freest economy in the
world, renowned for its rule of law and its zealous
protection of civil rights and civil liberties;
Whereas the Agreement between the Government of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the
Government of the People's Republic of China on the Question
of Hong Kong, done at Beijing December 19, 1984 (the Sino-
British Joint Declaration of 1984) explicitly guarantees that
all of Hong Kong's freedoms, including freedom of the press,
religious freedom, and freedom of association, will continue
for at least 50 years after the transfer of Hong Kong's
sovereignty from the United Kingdom to the People's Republic
of China on July 1, 1997;
Whereas in the 6 years since the transfer of the territory,
the citizens of Hong Kong have enjoyed a certain degree of
individual liberty, religious freedom, freedom of the press
and freedom of speech, which keep it both politically vibrant
and stable;
Whereas the People's Republic of China has increasingly
interfered in Hong Kong's independent judiciary, intimidated
the media to induce self-censorship, and excluded visitors
who disagree with the policies of the Chinese Communist
Party;
Whereas the Government of the Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region (SAR), encouraged by the Government of
the People's Republic of China, has eroded Hong Kong's
political independence, international prestige, and appeal as
a business and financial hub of Asia;
Whereas the freedoms cherished by the people of Hong Kong
serve as a constant reminder to the world and to the
Government of the People's Republic of China that such
freedoms could, but do not, prevail on mainland China;
Whereas the traditional liberties of Hong Kong's 7,000,000
people are now immediately threatened by a new national
security bill proposed by the SAR Government that would
revise Hong Kong's laws regarding sedition, treason,
subversion, and theft of state secrets;
Whereas the national security bill, as now drafted, is
vague and overly broad in its definitions of subversion,
sedition, and official secrets, weakens existing due process
protections in the Societies Ordinance, and gives dangerous
new powers to the police to make searches without warrant;
Whereas the proposed legislation would give the Hong Kong
SAR Secretary for Security, an appointee of the Government of
the People's Republic of China, broad authority to ban
organizations not approved by Beijing, thereby threatening
religious organizations such as the Falun Gong and the Roman
Catholic Church;
Whereas, under the proposed legislation, such basic and
fundamental procedural rights as notice and opportunity to be
heard could be waived by the Secretary for Security if
honoring these rights "would not be practicable";
Whereas the proposed legislation provides for the
imprisonment of individuals accused of "unauthorized
disclosure of protected information," making it possible for
the Hong Kong SAR Government to prosecute members of the news
media for publishing any information relevant to relations
between the People's Republic of China and Hong Kong;
Whereas similar subversion laws in the People's Republic of
China are regularly used to convict and imprison journalists,
labor activists, Internet entrepreneurs, and academics;
Whereas the members of Hong Kong's Legislative Council who
have been elected by universal suffrage oppose the proposed
legislation, but are powerless as a minority to block the
votes controlled directly and indirectly by the Government of
the People's Republic of China;
Whereas the clear majority of people in Hong Kong have
expressed strong concerns about, and opposition to, the
proposed legislation;
Whereas the scheduled consideration of these proposals to
restrict Hong Kong's freedoms in the Legislative Council on
July 9, 2003, makes the threat to the people of Hong Kong
clear and imminent; and
[[Page S8865]]
Whereas the United States has consistently supported the
desire of the people of Hong Kong to be free, and, as
Congress declared in the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act
of 1992 (22 U.S.C. 5701 et seq.): "The human rights of the
people of Hong Kong are of great importance to the United
States and are directly relevant to United States interests
in Hong Kong. Human rights also serve as a basis for Hong
Kong's continued economic prosperity": Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That
Congress--
(1) declares that restrictions on freedom of thought,
expression, and association in Hong Kong are limits on the
fundamental rights of the people of Hong Kong;
(2) declares that the national security bill would
undermine freedom of the press and access to information,
both of which are fundamentally important to the economic and
commercial success of Hong Kong;
(3) calls upon the SAR Government to--
(A) avoid implementing any law that restricts the basic
human freedoms of thought and expression, including the
proposed implementation of Article 23 of the Basic Law of the
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's
Republic of China (the Basic Law); and
(B) immediately schedule and conduct elections for the
Legislative Council of the Hong Kong SAR according to rules
approved by the people of Hong Kong through an election law
convention, by referendum, or both; and
(4) calls upon the President of the United States to--
(A) urge the Government of Hong Kong, including Hong Kong
Chief Executive Tung Chee Hwa and the Legislative Council,
not to implement any law, including any law established
pursuant to the proposed implementation of Article 23 of the
Basic Law, that restricts the basic human right to freedom of
thought and expression;
(B) call upon the People's Republic of China, the National
People's Congress, and any groups appointed by the Government
of the People's Republic of China to leave all revisions of
Hong Kong law to a democratically-elected legislature;
(C) call upon the Government of the People's Republic of
China to fully respect the autonomy and independence of the
Independent Commission Against Corruption and the chief
executive, civil service, judiciary, and police of Hong Kong;
(D) declare that the continued lack of an elected
legislature in Hong Kong constitutes a violation of the Sino-
British Joint Declaration of 1984; and
(E) call upon the Government of the People's Republic of
China to honor its treaty obligations under the Sino-British
Joint Declaration of 1984.
____________________
