Talk:Hong Kong Basic Law Article 23

message: This article seems to stop with the first draft National Security law. Because of the July 1 march and subsequent events, the proper draft law should be the revised one.
27 June 2003: http://www.legco.gov.hk/lcsearch/showdoc.htm?mylink=/search/marker?s=15&o=2&t=2&a=30&r=2&k=1,&g=0&PROPERTY=2;&MERGEFIELD=-&CODECONVERT=-&SORTFIELDS=-&SIM_START=1&SIM_NUM=10&REL_START=1&REL_NUM=10&LINK=-&REDIRECTTO=-&PATHLINK=-&p=%22National%20Security%22&c=17,1&i=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.legco.gov.hk%2Fyr02-03%2Fenglish%2Fhc%2Fpapers%2Fhc0627cb2-2646e.pdf&j=4905&v=&n=&link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.legco.gov.hk%2Fyr02-03%2Fenglish%2Fhc%2Fpapers%2Fhc0627cb2-2646e.pdf (the revised draft starts on p. 48). DOR (HK) (talk) 06:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Which draft law?

message: On July 1, 2003, approximately 200,000 - 500,000 people demonstrated against Article 23 by marching from Victoria Park, Causeway Bay to Central Government Offices in Central.
In fact most demonstrators were calling the government to improve the economic situations. Only some of the demonstrators were really concerned with Article 23. Another thing is that Hong Kong actually is quite divided on this matter. But unfortunetely this article only emphasized one side of view. More work could be done. --Formulax 09:36 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)
:It really looks like it was the other way round! olivier 10:00 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Of course there are many people against the Article 23, but most people are more concerned with economic problems. --Formulax 06:34 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)
:The way you expressed it makes it sound like the concerns around article 23 is only shared by a minority of people. I don't think that it is the case. olivier 10:30 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)
::Of course it is a great concern for many people. I just want to say that in the demonstration, more people were concerned with economic reasons rather than Article 23. --Formulax 02:36 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
:::As someone who watched the march and talked to participants afterwards, I can assure you that most people were concerned with Art 23. A DBB politician said in a TV interview during the march "These people are misled about Art. 23". The entire crowd howled. Setting aside my anecdotal evidence, I understand that today's South China Morning Post stated that most people there were "well-educated" and concerned about Art. 23. - David Stewart 04:33 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)
::::There is no denying that the first half of 2003, when the anti-national security protests took place, was an extremely difficult time. The economy was in a technical depression and people were scared because of SARS. To suggest that the July 1, 2003, protest march had only one source and that that source was opposition to the national security law, is bias. -- DOR 20 Nov 2007  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.176.69.125 (talk) 05:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Economic situation

message: :The patriotic instincts of Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa, rather than a desire to assert Hong Kong's separate identity, have been the main motivating factor in introduction of the bill. Tung himself owes a personal debt to the PRC government: his family's shipping conglomerate Orient Overseas was bailed out for the sum of $US120 million by Chinese government-owned companies in the 1980s.
Removed this since this wasn't the main motivating factor.  HK is constitutionally required to pass these laws.
::I'm of the opinion it should be retained, but modified. Most people in Hong Kong (from my pov as a resident here) view Tung's backing of the laws despite public opinion because of his personal debt to the PRC govt. Maybe edited to say, "Many people in Hong Kong believe..." - David Stewart 04:03 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)
::: Added it back in modified form.  One thing that is remarkable to me is how politically inept Tung is.  He could have easily had smooth passage of Article 23 legislation had he tried really hard to address public fears about the bill.  
Roadrunner
:::: I think Tung is politically inept (he ran for CE last year with no platform) but with even reasonable men like the Solicitor General Bob Allcock incapable of reassuring the public that this won't mean knocks on the door in the night by secret police, its difficult to see what else they could do. There is a good reason why Art 23. wasn't fleshed at pre-handover - too difficult. - David Stewart 06:21 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)
::::: The basic problem is that Tung and the HK government has been utterly dismissive of public opinion and input and that attitude has poisioned the whole process.  It's possible that Tung was under strong pressure from Beijing, but even in this case, I think Tung grossly underestimated the influence that HK public opinion has on Beijing, and Beijing's willingness to support him.
::::: It will be interesting to see what happens next.
Roadrunner
I actually think public opinion frightens Tung, and that he doesn't understand it. Look at his reaction to those opinion polls from HKU a few years back, and 
then look at how badly he tried to alter some opinion polls on Art.23 more recently. He is just not a natural democrat. - David Stewart 08:49 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Mrs. Ip has been criticised by the press and religious groups for her zealousness in pursuing the implementation of the legislation. In a politically clumsy move, Mrs. Ip asserted that because the ordinary people would not understand the legal language, there was no point in consulting them on it - in other words, because a few may not comprehend, let's keep everyone in the dark. This comment illustrates the extent to which authoritarian reflexes have become the natural habit of Hong Kong's unelected ruling elite.
: sounds very much like what's been happening in the states recently with the elected elite. The politicians can cry 'national safety', 'threat of terrorism' and quietly shuffle billions of dollars into rich friends pockets while passing nat'l legislation protecting Americans from hobgoblins in the dark...case in point nullification of campaign finance laws with recent national security legislation.
:So? He is also constitutionally required to give us universal suffrage and I don't see any action there. F 11:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Patriotic instincts

message: I am going to work on some tidying up, elaboration and reorganization of the topic, so that it would be more systematic. This includes:
* Introduces Article 23, backgrounds, etc.
* Briefly describe the proposals
* Timeline of the implementation
* Both sides of arguments (probably in another page), for both the process and procedure, including
** White bill vs. blue bill
** Debate on timing
** Debate on compendium
* Short treatment on the outcome.
* External links to a number of sites and articles.
While I would retain the present content as much as possible, the present treatment seemed to elaborate too much on some particular points, which may need to be summarized to give a proportionate treatment to other points in the overall debate. Some NPOVing also seemed necessary. 
I also consider it more appropriate to put political readouts / speculations
in a separate context. 
I would work on it in pieces and post omitted texts here.
Hlaw 18:00, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Tidying up

message: I posted this article on Wikipedia:Cleanup because it needs to be re-factored and copyedited.  I also had the following notes:
 * Does "Bishop Zen" have a first name?
 * President Hu is the President of China?
 * "is the strong desire to put on a good face before Taiwan's 2004 Presidential Election, hoping to increase public opinion there in favor of Chinese reunification." -> this happened in March, I think.
 * Clearly link to the full text of Article 23.
-- Beland 01:04, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup notes 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hong Kong Basic Law Article 23. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110522031840/https://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=&art_id=4513&sid=&con_type=1&d_str=20050311&sear_year=2005 to http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=&art_id=4513&sid=&con_type=1&d_str=20050311&sear_year=2005
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hong Kong Basic Law Article 23. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090805094551/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/stdn/std/Metro/GD20Ak01.html to http://www.thestandard.com.hk/stdn/std/Metro/GD20Ak01.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified