| |
COMMENTARY
Why Article 23 is bad for
China, too
By Iris Tsang
HONG
KONG - Some Chinese living on the mainland have trouble
understanding the depth of feeling in Hong Kong against
a proposed national-security law (Article 23 of the
Basic Law), which was put on hold after a vigorous
protest by half a million people on July 1. But these
mainlanders need look no farther than the case of Zhou
Zhengyi in Shanghai to see what Hong Kongers fear.
Since the July 1 protests, mainlanders have been
using Internet forums to express their amazement at Hong
Kong people's irresponsibility for not wanting to
protect their own country by way of Article 23, which
would prohibit subversion against Beijing. One even
suggested that Beijing should send in the People's
Liberation Army to "liberate" Hong Kong and scrap the
policy of "one country, two systems" immediately. Such
people believe that Article 23 is really about "national
security" of the fatherland. However, they fail to see
that the proposed security law would violate freedom of
speech and the press, which is of crucial importance to
a modern country.
Freedom of expression is not
only the basic right of every human being, it is also
vital for the development of a country. The
responsibilities of the press are to monitor the
operation of government, to discover injustice done to
civilians, and to try to prevent such injustice from
recurring. The power of press freedom is granted to
protect the interests of the whole country. A regime
without any monitoring system is vulnerable to
destruction by corrupt and dishonest officials, or by
anyone with power in their hands.
In a country
where press freedom is not protected, a national
security law is bound to be misused. This truth is
illustrated by the case of real-estate mogul Zhou
Zhengyi, Shanghai's wealthiest tycoon.
On May
28, the Jingan District People's Court in Shanghai began
hearing a lawsuit by six homeowners representing 2,159
original residents of a property on West Beijing Road.
The plaintiffs claimed that the Jingan District Property
Development Bureau, under the instructions of the
district government, improperly allowed a company
controlled by Zhou to redevelop the 43,429-square-meter
property without paying a land lease with an estimated
value of 300 million yuan (US$36.3 million).
But
in Shanghai, China's biggest city, a plaintiff can be
turned into a culprit in just one night. Zheng Enchong
was the lawyer for these relocated households suing Zhou
Zhengyi . Last Tuesday, the Shanghai court announced its
verdict in the case: the defendant Zhou Zhengyi was not
guilty. Not only that, but the lawyer Zheng has been
prosecuted by the Shanghai government for "disclosing
state secrets". His trial has begun.
Zhou
Zhengyi, 42, one of China's richest businessmen, used to
be the chairman of Hong Kong-listed Shanghai Land
Holdings and Shanghai Merchants Holdings but was
detained at the end of May. According to Chinese media,
he was interrogated by the China Banking Commission and
the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection of the
Communist Party. Notably Zhou, the head of
Shanghai-based Nongkai Development Group, has a close
relationship with the vice chairman and chief executive
of the Bank of China in Hong Kong, Liu Jinbao, who was
also suddenly transferred back to Beijing at the end of
May.
Yet before making any progress in suing
Zhou, Zheng was out of the blue arrested by Shanghai
police on June 6, allegedly for "disclosure of the
state's confidential information". In mainland China,
the charge of "disclosure of state secrets" can easily
become a weapon for those in power to eliminate their
foes.
Zheng was the lawyer of many cases in
which dislocated households sued Zhou and and alleged
collusion with local officials. Zheng is believed to be
one of the most important witnesses with knowledge of
evidence against Zhou's alleged illegal acts. A
spokesperson for the Shanghai Public Security Bureau
denied any linkage of Zheng's detention with
investigations on Zhou, but it is apparent that Zheng
was targeted because powerful people were threatened by
the lawsuits he handled.
A report last Tuesday
by Human Rights in China quoted an undisclosed source as
saying that the People's Procurators of Shanghai early
this month handed Zheng over to the court for
prosecution for "theft of state secrets". Although some
barristers have offered to defend Zheng, a source
worries that some officials of Shanghai government have
declared in private that they are determined to prevent
Zheng from ever "making trouble" again. Zheng is,
according to the source, doomed to be convicted and be
placed under probation, in order to disbar Zheng forever
in accordance with China's constitution.
As
Shanghai's richest businessman, Zhou is the target of
many female celebrities of the Hong Kong entertainment
industry. His "affairs" are of constant interest to Hong
Kong paparazzi, and have been the hot topic of
entertainment headlines for some time. The tycoon, with
only a primary-school education, started his business at
the age of 17 and miraculously became a magnate with
assets estimated at more than 10 billion yuan in just a
decade. It is said that even the local people do not
know how Zhou made this "miracle" real.
Zheng's
arrest was widely reported by the Hong Kong media, and
underscored why Hong Kong people opposed the enactment
of Article 23 so emphatically. There is no clear
definition of "disclosure of state secrets" in China's
constitution. For that reason, the law may be easily and
conveniently abused by those who have power. In Hong
Kong, it is felt that there is ample evidence that
so-called national-security laws have proved to be
lethal weapons against innocent citizens; hence the
media interest in the Zheng case.
Here we have a
lawsuit that followed legal procedure strictly, yet the
result is the disappearance of the plaintiffs and their
lawyer being held in custody. Can anyone genuinely
guarantee that a similar case would not happen in Hong
Kong once Article 23 is enacted? It is not that Hong
Kong people are unwilling to protect their country, but
they also hold that the ability to express one's opinion
freely is by no means less important. Currently, Hong
Kong currently enjoys a considerable degree of this kind
of freedom, but it is the greatest concern of Hong Kong
people whether this freedom can last.
Ironically, it is the lack of a national
security law in Hong Kong that protects the rights of
these victims in Shanghai to voice their grievances
against Zhou and Shanghai officials. Shen Ting is a
daughter of one of the families whose homes were bought
by Zhou. As Shen is a Hong Kong resident, she is able to
expose their cases to the Hong Kong and international
media.
The protection of the rights of the
underdog, in the long run, also protects the interests
of a country such as China.
(Copyright 2003 Asia
Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
