Introductory
Letter - Nov 18, 2002
Dear
Mrs. Ip,
In
a region where governments habitually jail journalists and
censor the
media, Hong Kong has long served as a beacon of free expression
and
transparent rule of law. Certainty
of these freedoms encouraged many foreign correspondents
to use Hong Kong as a base to cover Asia and prompted some
of the world's largest media organizations to locate their
regional headquarters here.
This
large presence of international media provides hundreds of
jobs and opportunities for Hong Kong residents while lending
prestige to the territory. In addition to making Hong Kong
the largest regional concentration of foreign media in Asia,
the territory's reputation for free flowing information has
also encouraged investor confidence in the economy and been
a major draw for multi-nationals from many other industries.
Founded
more than half a century ago to liaise between foreign
correspondents and the government of China, the Foreign
Correspondents' Club has long represented the interests
of foreign media. Our membership includes most of Hong Kong's
foreign correspondents, many local journalists as well as
a high proportion of the Asia's most senior publishing executives.
Our clubhouse has long served as a neutral venue to help
foster balanced debate and rational discussion on all topics.
In recent weeks our club has hosted
numerous events at which participants spoke both for and
against the
government's Article 23 Consultation Document.
While
our club rarely seeks involvement in any public policy debate,
the
issue of Article 23 raises questions vital to foreign and
local journalists
as well as the future of free expression in Hong Kong.
Our
response to the government's request for comments and views:
The Foreign Correspondents' Club strongly opposes the government's
proposal for Article 23.
We
fear the proposal, as described in the Consultation Document,
endangers journalists by opening them up to prosecution
for merely undertaking normal journalistic activities.
More
specifically, we strongly object to:
- The introduction of the mainland's broad notions of "national
security"
and "state secrets" into Hong Kong.
- Increases in the government's power to restrict the flow
of information
without a corresponding statutory right to access information.
- Placing the onus on reporters to determine whether or
not information they obtain has been legally disseminated.
- Possible prosecution of journalists under the newly created
offense
"unauthorized disclosure" if materials are published
without prior
government permission.
- The prohibition on publication of "information relating
to the commission
of offences and criminal investigations."
- The proposed granting of expanded police rights of search
and seizure.
- The offense of "dealing with a seditious publications"
and the offense of "unauthorized possession of a seditious
publication".
- The global reach of the proposed law which hold Hong Kong
permanent
residents at risk of prosecution for activities worldwide.
- The many broad and vague concepts put forward ]
in
the Consultation Document, such as "national security",
"incitement" as well as the declaration that "to
intimidate" the PRC government consists of subversion.
We
suggest that rather than introduce the law described in
the Consultation Document, the government update and narrow
Hong Kong's current and far too broad laws on these matters.
Any changes should just clean up anachronistic language
related to Britain's administration of the territory and
reduce the scope of the law to conform with the Johannesburg
Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and
Access to Information. Drafted in 1995 by an international
group of experts on law and human rights coming from both
developing and developed nations, the Johannesburg principles
seek to create a balance between the citizen's right to
information and the state's right and responsibility to
protect its integrity and security.
For
the protection of journalists, we also urge introduction
of "prior
publication" and "public interest" as a legal
defense.
Since
the details of wording will be so important, we strongly
urge the
government to release the full text of the proposed changes
and allow a
lengthy consultation period during which the public may
comment on any
proposed law in relation to Article 23.
As
it stands, the government's proposal for Article 23 would
damage Hong Kong's reputation for free flowing information
and possibly spark an exodus of journalists and news organizations,
among other dire effects on the territory.
Thank
you for considering our views and please do not hesitate
to get in
touch should you wish further discussion or input.
Sincerely,
Thomas
Crampton
President
Foreign Correspondents' Club, Hong Kong
