VZCZCXRO9899
PP RUEHCN RUEHGH
DE RUEHHK #2493/01 1661006
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 151006Z JUN 06
FM AMCONSUL HONG KONG
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 7302
INFO RUEHOO/CHINA POSTS COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC PRIORITY

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 HONG KONG 002493 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
NSC FOR DENNIS WILDER 
DEPT FOR EAP/CM 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/15/2031 
TAGS: PGOV PHUM PREL HK CH PINR MC
SUBJECT: UPDATE ON COVERT SURVEILLANCE AND WIRETAPPING 
LEGISLATION: SLOW PROGRESS AND GROWING IMPATIENCE 
 
REF: A. HONG KONG 0523 
     ¶B. HONG KONG 1656 
 
Classified By: E/P Chief Simon Schuchat.  REASONS: 1.4(b,d). 
 
¶1. (C) Summary: The government is becoming frustrated with 
the Legislative Council's (Legco) slow progress in 
scrutinizing a covert surveillance and wiretapping bill and 
has signaled that it may force a vote by August 2.  On June 
12, Secretary for Security Ambrose Lee called the progress 
"unsatisfactory" and said he might seek a special Legco 
session on August 2 to vote on the bill.  While eventual 
passage of the bill is all but certain, the Government blames 
pan-democratic members of the Bills Committee for the slow 
progress and is attempting to increase pressure on them by 
warning of dire consequences if the legislation is not passed 
by the August 8 deadline.  Pan-democratic legislators say 
they are moving as expeditiously as possibly given the 
complexity of issues.  A complicating factor is the Court of 
Final Appeal's agreement to hear a judicial challenge to the 
lower court's February ruling granting the Government a 
six-month grace period to enact legislation (see ref a). 
 
¶2. (C) Comment:  These are difficult issues for any modern 
society.  Particularly after the Article 23 debacle, however, 
Hong Kong's democracy and civil rights advocates (as well as 
much of the general public) are extremely sensitive to 
potential infringement of their traditional rights and 
freedoms.  The intense scrutiny of every word in this bill by 
pan-democratic legislators (whose ranks include many of Hong 
Kong's most prominent lawyers), and the drive to insert a 
judicial role into the process of authorizing surveillance, 
is further evidence that many democracy and civil rights 
advocates here see the court system as their final line of 
defense.  End Comment and Summary. 
 
Government Seeking Consensus, But Growing Impatient 
--------------------------------------------- ------ 
 
¶3. (C) While all sides appear to be working in good faith to 
enact covert surveillance legislation before the 
court-imposed grace period ends on August 8 (see ref a), the 
government is clearly frustrated with Legco's slow progress 
and has signaled that it may force a vote by August 2.  On 
June 12, Secretary for Security Ambrose Lee, speaking on a 
radio program, said the Legco Bills Committee's progress in 
scrutinizing the legislation was "unsatisfactory."  The 
committee has set a June 23 deadline for conclusion of its 
work, but thus far has completed only 12 of the bill's 65 
clauses.  Lee suggested that Legco might have to stay in 
session during its summer recess, which normally runs from 
mid-July to early October, to work on the bill.  Lee also 
said he might ask Legco President Rita Fan to convene a 
special Legco session on August 2 to vote on the bill. 
Committee member Philip Wong, who supports the government and 
is familiar with its plans, told us on June 14 that the 
government had decided to work right up to the deadline to 
gain the support of the pan-democratic camp.   However, with 
or without such support, Wong predicted the government would 
force a vote by August 2, though they "don't want to do it 
unless absolutely necessary."  Wong added that he had already 
cancelled his summer travel plans in anticipation of an 
extended session. 
 
¶4. (C) The government has the power to demand an up or down 
vote on its bill at any time, and passage seems all but 
certain.  Prior to such a vote, Legco members would have the 
right to offer amendments, but those amendments would require 
majority support from both the geographical and functional 
constituency halves of Legco.  While the pan-democratic camp 
holds 18 of 30 geographic constituency seats, it has only 7 
of 30 functional constituency seats, making amendment of the 
bill virtually impossible without government support.  Both 
pro-government parties, the Liberal Party and the Democratic 
Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB), 
have already indicated their support for bill (see ref b). 
 
"Bad Guys" Would Take Over 
-------------------------- 
 
¶5. (C) The Government is also attempting to increase pressure 
on the pan-democrats by warning the public of dire 
consequences if the legislation is not passed by the August 8 
deadline.  "If we don't have this law in place when the 
six-month grace period ends, there will be a vacuum where law 
enforcement agents will not have the legislative backing to 
carry out their work," Lee said on the same radio program. 
He added ominously, "the bad guys will take over" if the 
 
HONG KONG 00002493  002 OF 002 
 
 
legislation is not passed.  Several pro-government media 
outlets echoed Lee's warning.  The mass-circulation Oriental 
Daily News said in an editorial on June 13 that "Hong Kong's 
security system would collapse" and "the bad guys would do 
whatever they wanted" if Legco failed to pass the legislation 
by the deadline. 
 
¶6. (C) Pan-democratic members of the bills committee are 
being blamed for the slow progress.  During a May 25 session, 
Liberal Party legislator Selina Chow expressed exasperation 
with Democratic Party member James To for questioning the 
definitions of words like "judicial," "postal" and "install," 
according to the minutes of the meeting.  To responded that 
"every word may be controversial.  If the bill is not well 
drawn up, the scope can be extremely broad."  At another 
meeting, To questioned Permanent Secretary for Security 
Stanley Ying at length about the meaning of "private places" 
where people would have a reasonable expectation of privacy 
and, therefore, covert surveillance would require 
authorization.  He asked, for example, whether a golf course 
or a VIP room at a restaurant would be considered public 
places.  Ying responded that if they were open to the public, 
then conversations would not be entitled to reasonable 
privacy, unless they were conducted at a whisper.  Based on 
this type of questioning, Philip Wong told us the democrats 
were "intentionally dragging their feet" in order to have an 
issue for the July 1 march. 
 
¶7. (C) Pan-democratic legislators, however, claim they are 
moving as expeditiously as possible, given the complexity of 
trying to strike the right balance between personal freedoms 
and security.  Civic Party member Ronnie Tong has placed the 
blame on the Government, arguing that it took too long to 
produce draft legislation following the court rulings in 2005 
which overturned the current covert surveillance regime. 
Pan-democratic legislators also point out that the bills 
committee has been meeting almost daily over the past several 
weeks, but they continue to find additional problems.  For 
example, members say the bill would allow the Chief Executive 
to spy on his opponents since he is not considered a "public 
officer" under the Government's interpretation of that term. 
They also charge that a number of terms in the bill are vague 
and over broad.  The term "preventing crime," for example, 
which the bill lists as one justification for conducting 
covert surveillance, has broad coverage, said Civic Party 
member Margaret Ng.  "What should the trigger point be? You 
need to state what the limitations are," Ng said. 
 
Nobody Spoiling For a Fight 
--------------------------- 
 
¶8. (C) Nevertheless, in comparison with other recent 
legislative battles in Hong Kong involving issues of personal 
freedom and liberty -- notably the controversy surrounding 
Article 23 legislation in 2003, and the debate over 
constitutional reform and a timetable for universal suffrage 
in late 2005 -- both sides appear anxious to avoid a 
rancorous confrontation.  Philip Wong told us that, despite 
differences on various points in the bill, he believes that 
all committee members have accepted the overall concept of 
the legislation.  Likewise, Emily Lau told us on June 14 that 
"members want to get on with it and get it done."  She also 
said that, while serious differences of opinion still existed 
on important issues such as the definition of "public 
security," she believed the Government was working in good 
faith to address members' concerns.  She added, in reference 
to the former Secretary for Security during the Article 23 
debate, "Stanley Ying is definitely better than Regina Ip." 
 
Another Factor -- Long Hair's Court Challenge 
--------------------------------------------- 
 
¶9. (C) Another wild card that could complicate an already 
confused situation is the judicial review launched by 
legislator "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung.  Long Hair and 
another plaintiff are challenging the decision by High Court 
Justice Michael Hartman in February to delay for six months 
the effect of his ruling that the current covert surveillance 
regime had no legal basis, and that a decades-old wiretapping 
law was unconstitutional (see ref a).  The Court of Final 
Appeal will hear the case on July 5. 
Cunningham