Summary of FindingsBack
Results of this survey showed that 55% (55.3%) of the respondents interviewed opposed to SARG introducing the legislation to implement Article 23 of the Basic Law in principle, 16% (16.4%) supported, and 12% (12.2%) opted for "half-half" (Table 3). Regarding their inclination towards the government's original proposals, 49% (49.0%) of the respondents opposed them, 13% (13.2%) showed support, and 10% (9.7%) said "half-half" (Table 4). Besides, it is found that 45% (45.4%) of the respondents opposed the government's current proposals in the "National Security Bill", 19% (19.1%) supported them, 9% (8.7%) said "half-half", and 27% (26.7%) did not give a definite answer (Table 5).
|Quite supportive||98||) 166||9.7||) 16.4|
|Very opposed||303||) 559||30.0||) 55.3|
|Don't know / hard to say||161||16.0|
|Missing case (s)||22|
|Quite supportive||81||) 135||7.9||) 13.2|
|Very opposed||239||) 500||23.4||) 49.0|
|Don't know / hard to say||287||28.2|
|Missing case (s)||12|
|Quite supportive||136||) 196||13.3||) 19.1|
|Very opposed||223||) 463||21.9||) 45.4|
|Don't know / hard to say||272||26.7|
|Missing case (s)||14|
Results also revealed that 71% (71.3%) of the respondents believed that the SARG, during the legislation process of Article 23, was paying more attention to the opinion of the Beijing Central Government than that of the Hong Kong people, as contrast to 12% (12.4%) who thought the opposite, 6% (5.7%) said they carried equal weight (Table 6).
|More to opinion of the HK people||126||12.4|
|More to opinion of central government||728||71.3|
|Don't know / hard to say||109||10.7|
|Missing case (s)||11|
Regarding the 9th July deadline set by the government to pass the Article 23 legislation, 64% (64.2%) opposed this arrangement, 17% (17.1%) supported, while 7% (7.2%) took a neutral stand (Table 7).
|Quite supportive||111||) 174||10.9||) 17.1|
|Very opposed||347||) 651||34.2||) 64.2|
|Don't know / hard to say||118||11.6|
|Missing case (s)||17|
On the other hand, 73% (73.0%) of the respondents thought that current opposition voices would not have any effect on the legislation process. Seventeen percent (17.2%) thought that they would prompt government action (Table 8).
|Don't know / hard to say||101||9.8|
|Missing case (s)||4|
With regard to whether the offence of sedition could be applied to mere speech or writing without causing any consequences, 58% (58.1%) said no, 12% (12.4%) said yes, while 6% (5.7%) chose "half-half". The remaining 24% (23.9%) did not provide a definite answer (Table 9).
|Quite supportive||97||) 125||9.6||) 12.4|
|Very opposed||305||) 590||30.0||) 58.1|
|Don't know / hard to say||243||23.9|
|Missing case (s)||15|
As shown from Table 10, 60% (60.3%) of the respondents supported the introduction of the defence of "public interest" against charges of national security. Eighteen percent (18.1%) opposed, and 5% (5.0%) opted for "half-half" (Table 10).
|Quite supportive||381||) 568||40.5||) 60.3|
|Very opposed||66||) 171||7.0||) 18.1|
|Don't know / hard to say||156||16.6|
|Missing case (s)||91 ^|
^ The missing value for this question included a few cases which were dropped because at the very early stage of the survey, the wordings of "Meaning that it would be legal to deliver a speech or writing in 'public interest'" were not included.
Results also showed that as high as 85% (84.7%) of the overall sample objected to the police powers to enter their home without a court warrant, including 51% (51.2%) who said "very opposed", whilst only 7% (7.2%) of the respondents supported it (Table 11).
|Quite supportive||53||) 73||5.2||) 7.2|
|Very opposed||524||) 866||51.2||) 84.7|
|Don't know / hard to say||54||5.2|
|Missing case (s)||9|
Finally, this survey found that 45% (45.4%) of the respondents opposed Hong Kong creating the new offence of 'proscription', whereby local organizations could be banned because they were subordinate to some mainland organizations considered by the mainland government as endangering national security, when such an offence was not required by Article 23 of the Basic Law. Another 28% (27.5%) supported this proposal, 6% (5.5%) opted for "half-half", and 24% (23.5%) did not give a definite answer (Table 12). In case any such local organization was banned, 63% (62.5%) did not believe that mere association with such an organization could be harmful to national security. Nine percent (9.4%) were, on the other hand, supported the idea, 7% (6.7%) said "half-half" and 21% (21.3%) did not give a definite answer (Table 13).
|Quite supportive||211||) 278||20.9||) 27.5|
|Very opposed||222||) 460||21.9||) 45.4|
|Don't know / hard to say||218||21.5|
|Missing case (s)||21|
|Quite supportive||73||) 96||7.2||) 9.4|
|Very opposed||290||) 630||28.7||) 62.5|
|Don't know / hard to say||215||21.3|
|Missing case (s)||24|
|In support of gov't stand||Half-half||Opposed to gov't stand||Don't know / Hard to say||Sample base|
|The legislation of Article 23 in principle||16.4||12.2||55.3||16.0||1,010|
|Government's original proposals||13.2||9.7||49.0||28.2||1,020|
|Current proposals in the "National Security Bill"||19.1||8.7||45.4||26.7||1,018|
|Setting the 9th July deadline for passing the legislation||17.1||7.2||64.2||11.6||1,015|
|Offence of sedition based on mere speech or writing without any consequences||12.4||5.7||58.1||23.9||1,017|
|Defence of "public interest" against charges of national security||18.1||5.0||60.3||16.6||941|
|Police entering home without court warrant||7.2||3.0||84.7||5.2||1,023|
|New offence of 'proscription' to ban local organizations subordinate to some mainland bodies considered as endangering national security||27.5||5.5||45.4||21.5||1,011|
|Mere association with such an organization considered harmful to national security||9.4||6.7||62.5||21.3||1,008|
This survey has shown that, between 23 and 25 June 2003, the people of Hong Kong was, on the whole, opposed to Article 23 legislation, both in principle and on practical terms. Results showed that 55% opposed it in principle, 49% opposed the government's original proposal, 45% opposed the "National Security Bill", and 64% opposed to setting the 9th July deadline for passing the legislation.
Nevertheless, people were not expecting the government to change its course of legislation, because almost three-quarters of the population believed that the government cared more about the opinion of the Beijing Central Government than that of Hong Kong people.
With respect to specific proposals, among the list of items tested, opposition was strongest against the police entering peoples' homes without court warrants, as many as 85% opposed it. Forty-five percent opposed the introduction of the new offence of 'proscription', whereby local organizations could be banned because they were subordinate to some mainland organizations, considered by the mainland government as endangering national security, when this was not required by Article 23 of the Basic Law. There was also little support for the government over other items tested in this survey, including the idea of sedition, the defence of "public interest", and association with "proscribed" organizations.