Convenor of the non-official members of the Executive Council Regina Ip (right) attends the Straight Talk show on TVB, Feb 6, 2024. (PROVIDED TO CHINA DAILY)
Regina Ip, convenor of the non-official members of the Executive Council, is on the show this week. Ip explains how legislating Basic Law Article 23 into Hong Kong laws will ensure a brighter future for Hong Kong.
Check out the full transcript of TVB’s Straight Talk host Dr Eugene Chan’s interview with Regina Ip:
Chan: Good evening! I'm Eugene Chan. Welcome to Straight Talk. Our guest tonight is the Honorable Regina Ip. I'm sure Ip is well-known to us all. She is the convenor of the non-official members of the Executive Council and has been a member of the Legislative Council since 2008. She's also the founder and current chairperson of the New People's Party, and has served in several prominent roles in our Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government. She was the first female director of immigration and the first female secretary for security. Tonight, we will ask her to give us her perspectives on the necessity, challenges and potential ramifications of legislating Article 23. Will it give Hong Kong a new start? Welcome, Regina!
Ip: Thank you, Eugene!
Chan: So, Article 23 is back on the agenda, and our current government is determined to complete legislation in the shortest possible time. Before we go any further, I just want to remind us all that what this is all about. Article 23 is a provision within our mini constitution, the Basic Law, which mandates our administration to enact legislation to safeguard national security. This has been a subject of debate and contention for the past 26 years and now we have the National Security Law, the principle of patriots administering Hong Kong and also a positive relationship between the executive, legislative and even District Council. So, the first question for you, Regina is: could you please explain to the viewers why you believe this step is a necessity for Hong Kong at this time?
Ip: Article 23 of the Basic Law imposes a constitutional duty on us to enact local laws to prohibit seven national security offenses. The national security law enacted by Beijing in June 2020 only fills the gaps in respect of two offenses – secession and subversion. The remaining five offences specified in Article 23: treason, sedition, theft of state secrets, prohibiting foreign political organizations from undertaking political activities in Hong Kong, prohibiting connection between local political organizations with foreign political organizations. They still need to be ... these offenses still need to be updated or created to fulfill our obligation. Actually, a lot of the offences specified in Article 23, treason is already there; theft of state secrets is already dealt with under our official sequence ordinance, but the existing wording is archaic and outdated in substance so we need to update it.
Chan: So, Regina, would you say that it's crucial for Hong Kong's governance and stability to have to Article 23?
Ip: First of all, we do have a legal constitutional obligation. Macao did it in 2009. Secondly, we do have to complete and improve our defensive mechanism to protect Hong Kong from new national security threats as other jurisdictions have done in recent years.
Chan: Regina, you just mentioned that National Security Law has some areas that haven't been fully covered yet, so then we have Article 23. Actually in the government's consultative leaflet, they say that the risk and threats to national security persists in Hong Kong. So, can you give some specific examples so that the viewers are more aware of that, because now the whole of Hong Kong seems to be very peaceful in the last few years.
Ip: For example, you know, this document, the consultation document proposes the introduction of new offense of rebellion or insurrection, similar to what the US has in regard to the Jan 6, 2020 attack on Capitol Hill, and that's because of the events of 2019. You remember the very prolonged violent protests? Those were not simple civil protests. The rioters used military-grade equipment, gas masks, you know, crossbows, laser pens to injure the police, to attack the police, they surrounded the liaison office, they sacked the Legislative Council, and the purpose was to promote Hong Kong independence. And in fact, to overthrow the local administration. So, it's not a simple civil protest. It's a rebellion with the objective of overthrowing the government. So, in light of the events of 2019, the government is proposing we add new offense of rebellion and outlawing drilling, military-grade drilling, unless there is the permission from Secretary for Security and the Commission of Police, because you will recall, in 2019, a lot of the young people were very well-equipped,they were very well equipped and very well trained in setting infrastructure on fire, attacking MTR turnstiles, digging up bricks and dismantling those barriers to throw them at the police using Molotov cocktail. They were not simply civil protest.
Chan: We thought that many of them are either being on trial at the moment or being imprisoned or even left Hong Kong. So, why do we still have to worry? Especially with the NSL enacted?
Ip: We have to take preventive measures to make sure these violent protests and political violence will not recur. And as I said, the national security law enacted by Beijing only fills the gaps by creating the offense of secession and subversion. The other dangerous activities, other unlawful activities have not yet been prescribed, such as drilling, unlawful drilling, military drilling of young people. We don't want this other activity to occur again.
Chan: Right, Regina. Some have viewed this Article 23 as a potential tool for the central government to tighten this control on Hong Kong's autonomy. How would you respond to that? Because we always get this sort of blame in the media. And some people feel that this could be the case. So, I mean, you being a person who knows the last few governments, you know exactly what's happening and what impact will you anticipate when we have this Article 23 in terms of Hong Kong's autonomy.
Ip: A lot of people allege that national security legislation would curtail our freedoms and rights. But actually, for an offence to take part first of all, you must have criminal intent. That's a cornerstone of common law. Mens rea, criminal intent. If you say something you engage in a discussion with a diplomat or foreign correspondent or anybody, a think-tank, a foreign think-tank just to express your views or to have a constructive discussion without any criminal intent, that can't possibly constitute an offense. And the preconditions are, you have to have criminal intent, and also what you do or what you say, needs to be proven to endanger national security. And the burden of proof is on the prosecution. So, it's not like any person can commit an offense. The threshold is high.
Chan: So, in a way, it won't affect our autonomy at all.
Ip: No, it won't affect our rights or freedoms.
Chan: But one area that I'm sure many viewers will love me to ask you is: back in 2002 when this was first brought up, you were the security chief at the moment at that time, and we remember there were large protests – about half a million people on the street and the second reading of the proposed law …
Ip: The bill.
Chan: … the bill wasn't resumed. So, to us, that kind of stopped. And then you took your own initiative to resign as well in July. What happened then, I mean, a lot of people want to know why.
Ip: Actually the then chief executive, Mr Tung (Chee-hwa), decided not to resume second reading of the national security bill, not because of the protests. The protestors were entirely peaceful. Great credit to Hong Kong people. It's because Liberal Party decided not to support the government and took away about 10 votes. Without the votes of Liberal Party and some independents at that time, we did not have enough votes to get the bill passed. James Tien resigned from the Executive Council. So, Mr Tung had to tell the public we are not resuming the second reading of the national security bill, which I championed.
Chan: Right. And then you left the government …
Ip: Yes, yes yes.
Chan: … and went on to study and now you've become a very good leader for Hong Kong. Just a very silly question: what would have happened if we had Article 23, if we ... with what we went through such a terrible time in Hong Kong in 2019?
Ip: Now we would have had the offense of secession, breaking away a part of China and subversion, overthrow a government which means that if the rioters started waving pro-Hong Kong independent banners, "liberate Hong Kong”, “revolution of our times", we could have prosecuted them at that time, and stopped those actions, the same with trying to attack the police headquarters or surrounded the Liaison office, we could have charged them with subversion, which means that it would not have been necessary for Beijing to step in and introduce its own national security law safeguarding national security in Hong Kong. What we might need to do is to update the provisions in light of the events of 2019. But we could have avoided a direct involvement of the authorities in Beijing.
Chan: Let's take a break now. And viewers please stay tuned. We will see you right back here on Straight Talk in just a few moments.
Convenor of the non-official members of the Executive Council Regina Ip attends the Straight Talk show on TVB, Feb 6, 2024. (PROVIDED TO CHINA DAILY)
Chan: Thank you for staying with us. Regina Ip is on the show this evening, and we have been talking about the need to legislate Article 23, some of its background, and what difference legislation is going to make to you and me. So, Regina, thank you very much for the first part for telling what happened in 2002 and 2003. I believe the version that you were doing at that time was a much milder version compared to this much more detailed document in front of us at the moment. So, how different is it? And at that time it didn't go through, but now with a more complex one, is it going to go through this time?
Ip: I am confident it will go through. But why do we have a much thicker consultation document? That is partly the government's proposal has been put forward, partly because of the events of 2019. Before 2019, a lot of Hong Kong people did not think that we could be subject to such violent threats, you know. Secondly it is to take account of international trends. For example in recent years, many jurisdictions, Australia, the UK, Singapore, have all updated their legislation to take account of foreign interference. Singapore, in fact, a few days ago just named a Hong Kong-origin Singaporean citizen as a politically significant person, meaning that that person could be involved in political activities, which could be harmful to national security. And also we need to do a lot of updating. For example, the offense of espionage. Currently, in our official secret ordinance, it is what we inherited from the British. And the offense is if you make a drawing of a prohibited place or do a sketch or model, you commit an offense of espionage. Now nowadays nobody does drawings or make a sketch, you use technology. So, these sorts of outdated provisions need to be updated.
Chan: Right.
Ip: And this document added and proposed an additional offense of espionage, meaning you work with a foreign or external intelligence organization to do unlawful things, such as obtaining unauthorized information. So, all these changes are in line with international practice and overseas legislation.
Chan: Right. Regina, when you just mentioned the term ‘international practice’, in your view, how does our document benchmark to the rest of the world?
Ip: As I said in recent years, Australia, Singapore, the UK, have all added new provisions to proscribe foreign interference. And that includes interference in elections.
Chan: Right.
Ip: Interference in undermining the implementation or formulation of government policies. So, this document, on page 73, sets out, introduces, proposes a new offense of external interference, and specifies specific conducts. It is not just having tea with a foreigner. Specific conducts are specified in the proposal.
Chan: Regina, we saw (Chief Executive) John Lee coming out and saying that we are going to mobilize all the available personnel, including, making this a top priority, with all our high-level civil servants, or even everybody in the community to kind of kind of promote this concept, and then alleviate people’s concerns. In the last few years, especially our young people has been very proactive in expressing their views in affairs like this, but now things have been quiet. Do you think this is a good opportunity for us to engage them again, so that they know we are doing something good for Hong Kong and for our nation?
Ip: Of course, this is a golden opportunity to educate our young people and the community as a whole of the need for national security legislation, and the importance of safeguarding national security. But this is a highly complex subject, there is a lot of technical details. So, whoever takes the lead in engaging such discussions must be well versed with the technical details because if any misinformation could give rise to unjustified attacks from outside Hong Kong, so you need to be careful what you say and how you explain it.
Chan: So, Regina, what you said is so true because one topic that we often talk about in Straight Talk is about the negative rhetoric, especially from some of the Western media that they might not have the full picture, or they are either intended or unintended. So, with this Article 23 coming back on stage and hopefully it is going to be smooth sailing and we are going to have this to protect Hong Kong, how are we going to assure our Hong Kong citizens, or even foreign investors that none of our the freedom of expression, or even what you just said earlier, that communicating with the foreign organizations, will not pose any issues at all? How do we do that?
Ip: I think we have to keep explaining that there is a lot of misconception that if you talk to a foreigner if you do an interview with a foreign correspondent, you could be guilty of an offense. As I said, you have to have a criminal intention. Secondly, what you do, the government prosecution has to proof that it is harmful to national security. If you engage in a discussion to explain the provisions to a foreign think tank, for example, how can you be guilty of an offense under the proposals? So, you have to keep repeating and explaining. And the government has stressed upfront in this document that they will comply with all common law principles, as well as our international obligations under the international covenant on civil and political rights, and other important international human rights treaties. And we have independent courts, you know all the trials that have been taking place in the past few years, are done in open courts. A lot of consulate staff go to the courts to observe, nobody has been able to point to any irregularity. We have very high-quality judges, we have 11 distinguished overseas jurists sitting on our Court of Final Appeal. So, I don't think people need to worry about the erosion of our judicial independence or the rule of law in Hong Kong, or Hong Kong people's fundamental rights and freedoms.
Chan: Right. So, Regina, you being a person that has been in the government, went to the United States to pursue your studies, and you came back and set up a political party, you have been a legislator, now a convenor for the non-official members of the Executive Council. And you are constantly having dialogues with the foreign countries or diplomats. How will you think Hong Kong can come out better through this Article 23, rather than what we are expecting, we could be facing sanctions again?
Ip: The good thing about completing our duty is that Hong Kong will be safer, and Beijing will have greater trust in our ability to safeguard national security. The parameters will be clearer to the public, and Hong Kong people will know that they will not fall foul of the law, provided that they act within these parameters. So, overall, it is a … I think after the legislation has been enacted, it will be a big plus for Hong Kong, and investors will know that they don't need to worry about erosion of freedoms of information or whatever.
Chan: Right. The title of the show tonight is “Will Hong Kong have a good start?” What is your simple answer to that?
Straight Talk presenter Eugene Chan (left) interviews the Convenor of the non-official members of the Executive Council Regina Ip on TVB, Feb 6, 2024. (PROVIDED TO CHINA DAILY)
Ip: Definitely, we will have a fresh start. We will be able to reassure our international partners and investors that Hong Kong will be safer. The rule of law and judicial independence will be intact, and Hong Kong people's fundamental rights and freedoms will be protected.
Chan: See, as I just mentioned earlier, people are worried or concerned that this is going to scare all the foreign investors or nationals away from Hong Kong, especially in the financial market. What are your thoughts on that, actually in the possibility of that happening?
Ip:I think it is reasonable for our investors, overseas chambers to raise their concerns. The government will respond to that in the coming month, and during the bills scrutiny process, everyone who has concerns will have the opportunity to express their concerns, and we will address them. I’m sure both government and the legislators, dealing with the bill, will respond to that. For example, back in 2002 and 2003, because of opinions expressed by foreign chambers, we tightened up the definition of treason to exempt foreign nationals from the offense of treason because treason is about betraying your allegiance to your country. Now if an Australian citizen, not being a Chinese national, how can we accuse an Australian or an American of betraying China? So, we took on that comment and exempted foreign nationals from the offense of treason. So, this is a very good example of how the government did respond to opinions expressed. And I am sure the government will continue to do so.
Chan: Right. Regina, we are going to have a last question and short answer from you. As a district councilor, what do you have … do you have any suggestions for us, how do we bring this down gap between the people and administration? What would you suggest us to do?
Ip: This is a highly technical and complex subject. I don't think any District Councilor, it is not for any District Councilor focusing on district work, I don't expect them to be able to explain the details, the provisions in detail. What I hope is that they will give full support to the principles and rationales for the new proposals, and express their support.
Chan: Right. So, I guess the answer to your question tonight is yes, legislating Article 23 will certainly give Hong Kong a new start. Thank you, Ip, for sharing your perspectives with us. We hope that this discussion has helped explain the rationale for this legislation, and implications for Hong Kong’s future to our viewers. As our chief executive, John Lee, said last week on this matter, “when you have stability and security, money will come towards it, people will come towards it”. Have a good evening and see you next week!
