The 1 July 2003 March and the Withdrawal of Hong Kong’s Article 23 Bill

Background: Article 23 and the consultation

Article 23 of the Basic Law requires the Hong Kong SAR to enact laws on its own to prohibit treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People’s Government and theft of state secrets, to prohibit foreign political organisations from conducting political activities in Hong Kong, and to prohibit Hong Kong political organisations from establishing ties with foreign political organisations. More than five years after the handover no such law had been passed. According to a Legislative Council Secretariat brief, the government published a consultation document, “Proposals to implement Article 23 of the Basic Law,” on 24 September 2002; the three-month consultation ended on 24 December. The National Security (Legislative Provisions) Bill was gazetted on 14 February 2003 and introduced into the Legislative Council on 26 February. According to China News Service, nearly 100,000 submissions, both for and against, were received during the consultation, and the government then made nine important changes to its original proposals.

Rallies for and against the legislation took place during the consultation. According to the BBC, police estimated 12,000 people at a march against the proposals on 15 December 2002, while organisers said 50,000; on 22 December a coalition of 27 pro-Beijing groups held a rally in support, which its organisers said drew 40,000.

The controversy over the bill

The dispute centred on a few provisions. According to a report by Taiwan’s Mainland Affairs Council at the time, the bill allowed a local organisation to be proscribed as long as “the Secretary for Security reasonably believes for the purpose of the interests of national security” that proscription “is necessary,” including local groups subordinate to mainland organisations banned by the Central Authorities on national security grounds. A former chairman of the Bar Association called this an “automatic proscription mechanism,” and Catholic bishop Joseph Zen said it undermined “one country, two systems.” The absence of a public interest defence for unlawful disclosure of official information and police powers to search without a warrant in emergencies were also criticised; the Hong Kong Journalists Association warned that the lack of a public interest defence would weaken the public’s right to know. After the first reading on 26 February, 21 pro-democracy legislators walked out, and Democratic Party chairman Yeung Sum criticised the government for refusing to publish a “white bill” for a second round of consultation.

Foreign governments also voiced concern. On 19 June 2003 the White House said the legislation, “as currently drafted, could harm local freedoms and autonomy over time,” singled out the proscription provisions and the lack of a “public interest” defence, and said the United States opposed any law threatening Hong Kong’s unique identity, “including the current version of Article 23 legislation.” The British Foreign Office said in a statement on 30 June that the proscription provisions introduced linkages to mainland law into Hong Kong legislation and were inconsistent with the “One Country, Two Systems” principle.

The 1 July march

1 July 2003 was the sixth anniversary of the handover, and Premier Wen Jiabao attended the celebrations in Hong Kong. Asked about the bill, he said it “absolutely will not affect the different rights and freedoms that Hong Kong people -- including reporters -- enjoy under the law.” That afternoon a march organised by the Civil Human Rights Front took place; many participants wore black and called for Article 23 legislation to be dropped, and some for Tung Chee-hwa to step down. Estimates of its size differ: organisers said more than 500,000, police said 350,000 were on the streets at the peak, and the US State Department spokesman said that day “a quarter million.” The march was peaceful and lasted six and a half hours. The Associated Press reported that pro-Beijing groups held a carnival and football tournament the same day and that fishermen sailed boats flying the national flag around the harbour in support of the law.

That evening Tung issued a statement expressing understanding of the marchers’ aspirations but reiterating that enacting the bill was the SAR’s constitutional duty and that the government had pledged rights and freedoms would not be affected. On 3 July Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan said it was “entirely necessary” for Hong Kong to legislate on its own under Article 23.

Concessions, deferral and withdrawal

On 5 July Tung acknowledged that hundreds of thousands had marched to express concern over the proposals and dissatisfaction with government policies “and over my governance in particular.” He announced further amendments to the three most controversial areas: deleting the provision on local organisations subordinate to mainland organisations proscribed by the Central Authorities; introducing a “public interest” defence for unlawful disclosure of certain official information; and deleting the police power to search without a court warrant in emergency investigations. But he insisted the bill would resume second and third reading on 9 July as scheduled, calling it “a matter relating to the national dignity and the glory of the Chinese race.” The same day an official of the NPC Standing Committee’s Legislative Affairs Commission said the further amendments were appropriate and urged legislators and the public to support the SAR government in completing the legislation as scheduled.

On the evening of 6 July the normally pro-government Liberal Party asked the government to defer the second reading, and the party’s James Tien resigned from the Executive Council. In the early hours of 7 July, after a special Executive Council meeting, Tung announced that the second reading would be deferred. Liaison Office director Gao Siren said he respected the decision and that the SAR government’s priority should be developing the economy and improving livelihoods. On 8 July, asked by a reporter about the march of 500,000, the Foreign Ministry spokesman said the question did not fall within the scope of what the ministry’s spokesman answers.

On 16 July Secretary for Security Regina Ip announced her resignation, saying she had given notice on 25 June, that her decision was “entirely due to personal reasons,” and that she deeply regretted that the legislation was not completed as scheduled. Financial Secretary Antony Leung resigned the same day; he had earlier been criticised for buying a car shortly before raising the first registration tax on vehicles. On 17 July Tung announced that the bill would be put to public consultation again and that the timing of the legislative process would depend on the consultation.

On 5 September, after a special Executive Council meeting, Tung announced that the bill would be withdrawn. He gave two reasons: the community still had doubts about the provisions and needed time to study them, and the public’s main concern was the economy and the recovery. The Security Bureau would set up a working group to review the legislation afresh, with no timetable. He also said enacting Article 23 legislation remained “a constitutional duty that the HKSAR must fulfil.” The next day Secretary for Security Ambrose Lee stressed that the government had only withdrawn the bill and had not shelved Article 23 legislation.

Aftermath

For the next two decades no local Article 23 bill was reintroduced. On 30 June 2020 the NPC Standing Committee enacted the Hong Kong National Security Law for application in Hong Kong. On 19 March 2024 the Legislative Council passed the Safeguarding National Security Bill, which the government said fully implemented the constitutional duty under Article 23. After 2003 the Civil Human Rights Front organised a march every 1 July until police banned it during the pandemic; the group disbanded after the national security law took effect.