Why Security Matters
Mrs Regina Ip, GBS, JP, Secretary for Security, was the Foundation's guest speaker on 16 June 2003. Below is the full text of her speech.
Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen,
I must thank the Hong Kong Democratic Foundation for giving me the opportunity to address your luncheon meeting today - it is, indeed, a great honour. I had no hesitation in accepting your invitation, particularly as it allows me to expand a little on a topic that is getting much publicity these days - the national security bill now before the Legislative Council.
The good things in life cannot be taken for granted
So, there are no prizes for guessing the subject of my speech today - 'Why Security Matters'. The same question can be asked of many of the good things in life that we take for granted, such as a clean and healthy environment, or a foolproof medical and health system - hospitals where all the sick who come for help will be treated and cured. Our city's bitter experience with SARS in the past few months is compelling evidence that we cannot take any of these for granted. I'm sure you would agree there are many little things we do to ensure our well-being. Things that matter to us personally, but we don't make a fuss about them. The SARS experience shows that things we were taught to do from childhood, but have overlooked as we grow older, do matter - such as washing our hands; keeping personal hygiene; eating healthy food; maintaining regular physical exercise. These do matter a great deal. One of the most valuable lessons we have learned from SARS is the importance of going back to the basics and keeping up our guard against threats that are unimaginable and unknown. September 11th 2001, and battle against SARS, helped change all that.
Nothing in the security arena is taken for granted
For those of us in the security business, the very nature of what we do - keeping law and order, keeping the community safe, guarding against the unknown and making contingency plans for disasters - means we cannot take anything for granted. Maintaining safety and security is something we have to work at incessantly - often working quietly behind the scene, away from the glare of the public spotlight. Members of the public who have an interest in Hong Kong - whether as local residents or visitors, whether tax-paying or otherwise - have a right to take this for granted. They have a right to expect their government to take care of things for them. But those of us who are in charge of security must have a different mindset - to be always questioning, querying, reviewing and anticipating threats. As General Sir Peter de la Billiere, the Commander of Britain's SAS during the First Gulf War, said in his popular book on the War, we have to be constantly 'Looking for Trouble'.
Why security matters
The story of what we do does not end with just looking for trouble. Trouble-shooting, even before a threat becomes apparent, is equally if not more important. Let me illustrate this by discussing a few important pressure points under my portfolio - dimensions of my work that are vitally important to the well-being of all those residing or visiting Hong Kong, albeit not currently in the public limelight. There are a few obvious examples.
Law and order
With the community-wide pre-occupation with SARS and various economic problems, the crime situation is something that Hong Kong residents do not currently fixate upon. Our overall crime rate of around 420 per 100,000, remains one of the lowest amongst world metropolitan cities; and at this level is one of the lowest in the past 29 years. However, as some of you will have noted, in the first quarter of this year there was an upsurge in the overall crime rate of 9.3%, compared to that in the last quarter of 2002. This was mainly due to an increase in 'quick cash crime', such as pick-pocketing and theft from vehicles. After I announced the increase at the end of the last bi-monthly Fight Crime Committee meeting in May, the community did not seem overly worried. While it was a relief that the surge in petty crime was not a cause for public concern, if left unchecked it could result in an insidious and dangerous deterioration in law and order. So, we have every reason to be as concerned about the rise in petty crime as the persistence of serious and organised crime. The Police are acutely aware of this and are conducting operations at black spots and promoting public awareness of crime prevention measures to combat these offences.
Tourism
In recent months, there has been a great deal of publicity about promoting tourism, especially with the inauguration of the 'individual tours' from Guangdong, as a means of invigorating our economy. In view of the slackening in domestic consumption and our limited fiscal and monetary options, a demand side stimulus is undoubtedly needed. My bureau and our departments concerned, notably the Police and Immigration, have pledged full support for this new scheme. But tourism from the Mainland needs to be properly managed to ensure maximum benefits for everyone concerned - greater ease of travel for genuine Mainland visitors and real economic benefits for Hong Kong. To achieve these goals, we need to work with the Mainland authorities to put in place a system for issuing visit permits to the right people. A system that allows for appropriate screening before and on arrival, and for corrective action to be taken where required. This also means maintaining an effective criminal justice system that allows for the deterrence, prevention, apprehension and punishment of crime. The security dimension may not be readily apparent to the advocates of greater tourism revenue, but I would venture to suggest that the success of any expanded visit scheme hinges on there being no adverse effect on law and order and overall security.
Terrorism
As the trauma of the September 11 attacks recedes, most of us in Hong Kong can afford to feel relatively unconcerned about on-going terrorist activity in Asia, Africa and the mid-East. While our assessment of the risk of an actual terrorist attack against Hong Kong remains low, we have good reasons to be concerned about global patterns of terrorism. One can never rule out the possibility of Hong Kong being directly affected. Moreover, globe-trotting Hong Kong residents visiting exotic hideaways or business destinations could find themselves suddenly caught up in the midst of a hostage taking drama or bomb explosions. You need look no further than Bali as the most recent example of what I mean. For all these reasons, plus our obligation to the international community to join hands in fighting terrorism, there has been no let-up whatsoever in our efforts to 'look for trouble' on this front.
National security
To the average Hong Kong citizen, the biggest question perhaps is - why does national security matter? A frequent reason advanced for querying the need for national security legislation is the absence of any tangible threat. But then what country that has national security legislation in place is faced with an imminent and palpable threat? Certainly not the UK, Canada, Australia, or New Zealand. The list could go on. I would venture to suggest that the average Hong Kong person might have a problem with the need for national security legislation for the following reasons -
-
Where the 'theology', or the justifications for legislation, is concerned, with Hong Kong having been a colony for over 150 years, there are few people here who are imbued with the concept of protecting one's country. Having reached world prominence by virtue of being a light manufacturing centre and, more recently, a financial services centre and a trade and business hub, I believe it would be reasonably accurate to say that few Hong Kong people would pause to think about what they could do for their country, especially in regard to a threat which does not seem imminent or visible. By comparison leaders in other countries have given far more thought to the reciprocal relationship between the individual and the State. Consider, for example, the following passages from 'The Canadian Law Reform Commission Working Paper 49 of 1986:
'Crimes against the State should be concerned primarily with protection of the State and democracy, as defined. Society per se is also in need of protection, but this is a matter more appropriately dealt with as crimes against public order ..... Nevertheless the concept of "State" includes important aspects of the notion of "society" so that we will see that the offences against the State, designed to protect the State and democracy, will in fact serve to protect Canadian society as a whole as well.
Thus, there are many facets of the State that deserve protection. First, the people who make up the society that is the State should be protected from violent attack, whether by foreign invaders or internal revolutionaries. Second, the formal State institutions such as the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government should be protected from violence and coercion. Third, the democratic character of the State and its institutions should be protected from destruction.
The reciprocal relationship between the individual and the State involves, on the part of the State, protection of the individual from violent invasion and oppression, and, on the part of the individual, a concomitant obligation to uphold the State and not betray it. Thus if the State affords such protection to the individual, betrayal of the State by the individual would be wrongful and deserving of criminal sanction.'
-
Queries have also been raised on the ground that there is no practical need for such legislation, as there are no perceived threats to the well-being of the State. We in Hong Kong are indeed fortunate in that other than the ravages of two World Wars, Hong Kong people have been spared the direct threat of a foreign invasion, violent internal insurrection or secessionist movements. The fact that we have not been so threatened, largely by virtue of our being a commercial city and, until six years ago, a colony, does not mean that these threats do not exist. In many other parts of the world, threats to the sovereignty, unity, territorial integrity and security of a state are real and are taken very seriously. If I could cite a few examples:
-
First, to illustrate the importance attached to territorial integrity. I note that in some countries, jokes about territorial disputes are no laughing matter. A report in Time Magazine last September noted that Indian citizens were 'outraged by the latest newspaper ad for Cadbury's chocolate, featuring a map of India with the state of Jammu and Kashmir - including disputed regions claimed by both India and Pakistan - stamped with the slogan "too good to share." Politicians condemned the campaign for trivializing a sensitive conflict that has cost thousand of lives and keeps the two nuclear-armed countries on the brink of war'. Although it may be hard for some Hong Kong residents to grasp such sentiments, nationals of countries faced with threats to their territorial integrity do react with anger to the slightest jokes about their territorial claims.
-
There are other on-going examples of what I mean. One shows the vehemence and alacrity with which states spring into action to defend territorial integrity, such as the military action by the Indonesian Government to prevent the violent secession of the rebel Aceh province. And another case involving swift diplomatic action to forestall separatist movements. According to a report in the Asian Wall Street Journal of 10 April 2003, "Alarmed by Kurdish advances in northern Iraq as Baathist resistance crumbles, Turkey has launched high-level contacts with its neighbours Iran and Syria, two countries with which it shares a common dread of Kurdish separatism". It goes on to say that "Currently Iran, Syria and Turkey are united less by religion than by common concern about the battlefield successes of the Iraqi Kurds. They worry that their own Kurdish minorities might be encouraged to rebel if Iraqi Kurds, emboldened by victory, declare independence'. For these reasons, the Turkish Government invited the Iranian Foreign Minister to Ankara just four days after the US Secretary of State's visit', notwithstanding that such intensified contacts would create 'new tensions with the US'. Apart from diplomatic moves, Turkey contemplated military intervention to forestall the establishment of an independent Kurdish State in northern Iraq." Who says separatist threats are not to be taken seriously?
-
-
What about other threats like treason or subversion? While such attempts might seem fanciful to residents of peaceful Hong Kong, it bears remembering that an armed uprising did occur in idyllic Fiji not that long ago, in May of 2000, when a rebel leader, claiming to act on behalf of indigenous Fijians, seized Parliament with the assistance of rebel troops and held hostage for a number of days the ethnic Indian Prime Minister, more than 20 members of his cabinet and other lawmakers. The coup attempt was roundly condemned by the Fijian and Australian Governments and the perpetrators were eventually prosecuted for treason and misprision of treason.
-
Consider also espionage, regularly dramatised in movies but rarely detected in real life. The high importance a State attaches to the protection of its secrets is illustrated by the fact that the offence of espionage attracts capital punishment in many countries. In the US, the recent conviction of a former Air Force Officer Brian Regan of attempted espionage, which attracts the death penalty, is another case in point. Regan was convicted of offering to sell US intelligence information to Iraq and China although his alleged acts of betrayal were actually foiled. Faced with dire consequences for national security in the event of the theft of certain vital information, the statutes of many advanced democracies reflect international consensus that spying is injurious to national security and deserves to be dealt with forcefully under the criminal code.
Why security matters
I hope these few examples have helped to illustrate my point that security does matter. Whether it is personal security, physical security of facilities and buildings, the security of societies or of states, security lies at the heart of our well-being. It is a cornerstone of the smooth running of our society. Underlying safety and security enable us to carry on with our normal daily lives unhindered and free from interference. As threats to the security of a state directly affect the well-being of individuals residing within that state, it is in their interests to contribute to upholding its safety and security. I firmly believe that the tragic events of September the 11th in New York and Washington, and of October the 12th last year in Bali, are the stark reminders that deep down none of us can really question why security matters.
The above does not necessarily represent the views of the Foundation