|
|
 |
| Issue 22 |
upcoming
issue |
 |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Contact our secretariat at Telephone no. 2869-6443, Fax
no. 2869 6318 or e-mail at hkdf@hkdf.org for
information on the Foundation or comments on this newsletter.
|
| Share your opinion on this subject
with others in HKDF's online discussion forum |
© Hong Kong Democratic
Foundation. Articles in this newsletter may be reproduced with
acknowledgment of the source.
|
|
|
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, as 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
|