If anything, public focus on Sars, a crippled economy and a financial secretary embroiled in an ethics scandal over his purchase of a luxury car just weeks before he hiked the vehicle purchase tax should have persuaded the Government that now is not the time for this divisive bill. Granted, government cannot come to a halt because of Sars, but by refusing to back down on Article 23, it smacks of a railroading attempt.
Why the rush? After all, there has been no challenge from Hong Kong to its or China's security since the handover. Yet, the Government continues to drive its treason, sedition, subversion and the theft of state secrets legislation despite its far-reaching implications on Hong Kong's liberties, including freedom of speech. These threats to the city's much-admired freedoms, in a region where such liberties are sorely missing, has caused great disquiet among media and business groups and the EU and US administration.
Which is why, the Government's insistence on keeping to an artificial summer timetable of its own making beggars belief. Legislation as important as Article 23 deserves to be thrown open to full and uncensured public debate. It deserves a white paper as media and business groups have demanded.
It demands clarity not vagueness. Yet, this late in the process, the proposed law remains far too all encompassing and vague on issues relating to sedition.
In rushing today, without thought to safeguards, it could uncork the potential for abuse should a future government decide to use it to crack down on freedoms of speech, the press and religion.
If it wants to fully assure Hong Kong that its freedoms will be protected, the Government must at the very least limit description of seditious acts to those using armed force to overthrow the administration. Refusal to do so would imperil Hong Kong's healthy tradition for debate. It would leave journalists vulnerable when covering embarrassing issues such as the recent expose of the financial secretary's car purchase. At the turn of the millennium, Hong Kong has a unique opportunity to eliminate and reject the excesses contained in past sedition laws. But to do so, the Government must allow meaningful debate and time for legal experts to unravel and carefully shape the legislation. If it fails to grasp this opportunity, the Government could end up criminalising what is not at this stage criminal acts.