BEIJING, Oct 16 (IPS) - As the most sensitive piece of Hong Kong's mini-constitution, Article 23, comes up for public consultation, its leaders' promises for open and fair discussion before its enactment are being discredited by their reluctance to release the exact wording of the proposed law.
In the vague overview offered to public, the tough new national security law, which is designed to combat "subversion," says that any organization of which Beijing disapproves on security grounds will be proscribed in Hong Kong.
Police who suspect subversion would be given even more power to conduct searches without warrants.
Anyone publishing "seditious" material could be jailed for seven years and Hong Kong residents and press would be allowed to speak freely--as long as authorities deem that their speech is not intended to "incite" subversion.
What worries critics of the law most is the fact that the decision on what exactly constitutes "seditious" material and "incitement" is left not to Hong Kong courts, but to the central government in Beijing.
"A careful reading of the consultation paper reveals numerous draconian measures and serious pitfalls," argues Margaret Ng, a legislator in Hong Kong.
"These proposals remove the separation between the mainland and the Hong Kong systems, and surrender to the central authorities a fundamentally important part of the autonomy provided under the Basic Law," she points out.
The autonomy concept was advanced by the late Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping and enshrined in the formula of "one country, two systems" for Hong Kong. It recognizes China's sovereignty while granting Hong Kong considerable autonomy so it can carry on with its capitalist ways.
When the former British colony rejoined China on Jul. 1, 1997, it began operating under a mini-constitution, known as the Basic Law, which guarantees its freedoms for at least 50 years.
Pro-democracy figures in Hong Kong, however, have long feared the Basic Law's Article 23, which says Hong Kong must "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."
In July, when Hong Kong celebrated five years of its return to Chinese sovereignty, Qian Qichen, the deputy prime minister responsible for Hong Kong affairs, said publicly that Article 23 should be implemented now.
City leaders were quick to follow its admonition and three weeks ago, they released proposals for the law, to be adopted after a period of public consultation.
Since then, critics have pointed out that instead of releasing the law as a white bill that is intended for consultation purposes and has room for suggestions from the public, the government has published a blue bill--intended for enactment.
Urged by members of Hong Kong's Legislative Council to spell out the actual provisions of the law, Secretary for Security Regina Ip said that "taxi drivers, restaurant waiters and McDonald's staff" would not study the provisions of a white bill in detail, and that only experts such as legislators and academics would do so.
This contradicts promises by Hong Kong leaders that legislation will be "clearly and tightly defined" so that fundamental rights and freedoms are protected.
The city's appointed chief executive, Tung Chee-hwa, says the new law is "liberal and reasonable" and conforms with internationally recognized standards of security measures.
But many disagree. As Hong Kong, the Asian financial hub, is also a center for pro-Taiwan and Tibet groups, critics of the law fear that the government would use the proposed law as a legal vehicle to stifle dissent.
Independence for Taiwan, although it has been governed separately from China since 1949, or for Tibet, is viewed by Beijing as political dissent.
Hong Kong has frequent but mainly peaceful protests, some calling for democracy in China or an end to Beijing's persecution of the meditation sect Falun Gong.
The most conspicuous manifestations of civil disobedience come every year on Jun. 4, when Hong Kong residents attend candlelight vigils to commemorate the victims of Beijing's bloody crackdown on 1989 pro-democracy movement.
Because the Hong Kong government has not released the exact wording of the proposed law, it remains unclear what constitutes an offence of subversion. "To intimidate the central government" is cited as one type of offence but what amounts to "intimidation" is left in a legal gray area.
Critics of the new law point out how Beijing felt "intimidated" in 1999, when Falun Gong followers surrounded the government headquarters in the Zhongnanhai compound here to demand their recognition as a religious group.
Although the protest was silent and peaceful, two months later Beijing outlawed the meditation group, calling it a "cult."
"The devil is in the details," Martin Lee, head of Hong Kong's Democratic Party, wrote in a recent commentary in the 'Asian Wall Street Journal.'
"But for the Hong Kong government to win public support, the devil must not be exposed during the consultation period," he argued. "The public will not be told the entire truth. Instead, the proposals are all couched in broad principles and without specifics."