-

[SOCIETY] The muted voice

The Young Reporter (2017, April), 49(06), pp. 7, 8, 9.
Author: Yoyo Chow. Editor: Catherine Xu.
Permanent URL - https://sys01.lib.hkbu.edu.hk/bujspa/purl.php?&did=bujspa0002840

By Yoyo Chow

Edited by Catherine Xu

In between the crowds at the Lunar New Year Fair 2017 in Victoria Park, Causeway Bay, there were three stalls which had never operated : the 33th, 199th and 200th.

On January 18, the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department barred Hong Kong National Party and Youngspiration from running stall on the grounds that they posed “a threat to public order. The government was afraid they would sell products supporting Hong Kong independence.

An official letter said the stalls were a safety concern as they could attract political protestors to the crowded fair.

The government department exercised the power stated in clause 10 of the license agreement, which allows it to terminate a signed contract “whatever reasons as the Department finds fit to do so” .

In an appeal, Youngspiration provided information on their products, describing them as the work of Hong Kong artist but failed to overturn the government decision.

“When we advocate Hong Kong independence, I think we are pretty much blocked from the government. For example, I can’t register a company; I can’t run in the election for LegCo. And, of course, any event, fairs, connected to the government, we will be blocked,” said Hong Kong National Party convenor, Andy Chan Ho-tin.

Chan said the government has the obligation to protect his human right of freedom of speech and running a business.

“It is my right that I can sell my things in the market through an auction, sign a contract,” said Chan.

“We were not involved in any violent event but People Power, which is involved in those kind of event for few times, is allowed to participate in this market.”

Concerning the violation of the Basic Law, Chan believed it is not the main focus when handling in court and reaffirmed the absolute duty of the government to materialize the freedom of speech and create a fair business environment.

He said the government should not misuse their granted power to interfere politically, such as how university affairs should not be affected by the authority despite of the automatic appointment of the Chief Executive to be university chancellor.

“The power and the right have been given to you, but it is not necessary for you to execute the power,” said Chan.

“The problem is not the clause 10, the problem is the government. It shouldn’t use that clause in that circumstances,” Chan said.

The government did the right thing, said Priscilla Leung Mei-fun, lawmaker from Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong.

“Under the Basic Law, it very clear Hong Kong is part of China,” said Leung, “If any political group would try to advocate pro-independence of Hong Kong or it is related activity, personally, I also hold the view that the government-funded places and public places should not be allowed [for them to use] .”

She pointed out clause 10 is the the discretion of the government department to decide whether or not they would grant license to the seekers in public area.

Leung agreed the associated political parties gave reasonable suspicion of not serving the purposes of the fair with celebrative and ordinary activities, given that their items may carry content which is against the Basic Law and they may inflict physical confrontation if their pamphlets were prohibited to distribute. .

“In fact, those political parties should review themselves. If they really want to join the flower market, they should do celebration, maybe lion dance and other things,” said Leung , “Don’t mingle it with Chinese New Year activities.”

Cheung Chor-yung, the assistant head of the Department of Public Policy in City University of Hong Kong and an experienced media commentator, considered this incident as a political interference, yet a natural response from any government.

“It is certainly political, but a kind of expected response of any in the sense that the organizers tend to abolish the government, attack the government or try to mobilize people to get away from the government to be independent,” said Cheung.

Cheung said clause 10 is not specifically designed for controlling political controversy, but providing administrative convenience to protect the authority. In this case, it acted as a replacement of Article 23 to eliminate opportunity for pro-independence.

He said going beyond the constitution would be the limit, despite of the freedom of speech allowing Hongkongers to suggest different political views. “If they say Hong Kong is not China, Beijing the PRC is not the sovereignty state over Hong Kong, then it is diametrically opposite to the constitutional set up in Hong Kong,” .

Hong Kong Basic Law Article 23 stated there should be law enacted in order to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People’s Government, or theft of state secrets. No foreign political organization is allowed to conduct political activities and establish bond with local political parties.

“I think ultimately if we really have the legislation [of Article 23], they will be prosecuted by the government. But, since the government do not have the legal mean to do that, they can only rely on administrative means or depriving you government resources when advocating for separatism and independent” .

Headlines