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).


Table 3 - [Q1] Generally speaking, do you in principle support or oppose SARG introducing legislation to implement Article 23 of the Basic Law? (Interviewers probed strength of opinion)
   Frequency  Percentage
 Very supportive 68  )  6.7  ) 
 Quite supportive 98  ) 166  9.7  ) 16.4 
 Half-half 123    12.2   
 Quite opposed 256  )  25.3  ) 
 Very opposed 303  ) 559  30.0  ) 55.3 
 Don't know / hard to say 161    16.0   
 Total 1,010    100.0   
 Base 1,032       
 Missing case (s) 22       

Table 4 - [Q2] Generally speaking, do you support or oppose the government's original proposals? (Interviewers probed strength of opinion)
   Frequency  Percentage
 Very supportive 54  )  5.3  ) 
 Quite supportive 81  ) 135  7.9  ) 13.2 
 Half-half 98    9.7   
 Quite opposed 261  )  25.6  ) 
 Very opposed 239  ) 500  23.4  ) 49.0 
 Don't know / hard to say 287    28.2   
 Total 1,020    100.0   
 Base 1,032       
 Missing case (s) 12       

Table 5 - [Q3] Generally speaking, do you support or oppose the government's current proposals in the "National Security Bill"? (Interviewers probed strength of opinion)
   Frequency  Percentage
 Very supportive 60  )  5.8  ) 
 Quite supportive 136  ) 196  13.3  ) 19.1 
 Half-half 89    8.7   
 Quite opposed 240  )  23.5  ) 
 Very opposed 223  ) 463  21.9  ) 45.4 
 Don't know / hard to say 272    26.7   
 Total 1,018    100.0   
 Base 1,032       
 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).


Table 6 - [Q4] In introducing legislation to implement Article 23, do you think that the government is paying more attention to the opinion of the people of Hong Kong or the Beijing Central Government? (Interviewers did not read out answers)
   Frequency  Percentage
 More to opinion of the HK people 126  12.4 
 More to opinion of central government 728  71.3 
 Same 58  5.7 
 Don't know / hard to say 109  10.7 
 Total 1,021  100.0 
 Base 1,032   
 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).


Table 7 - [Q5] Do you support or oppose the government's setting the 9th July deadline for the Article 23 legislation to be passed? (Interviewers probed strength of opinion)
   Frequency  Percentage
 Very supportive 63  )  6.2  ) 
 Quite supportive 111  ) 174  10.9  ) 17.1 
 Half-half 73    7.2   
 Quite opposed 304  )  30.0  ) 
 Very opposed 347  ) 651  34.2  ) 64.2 
 Don't know / hard to say 118    11.6   
 Total 1,015    100.0   
 Base 1,032       
 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).


Table 8 - [Q6] Do you think current opposition voices will have any effect on the process and content of the legislation?
   Frequency  Percentage
 Yes 177  17.2 
 No 750  73.0 
 Don't know / hard to say 101  9.8 
 Total 1,028  100.0 
 Base 1,032   
 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).


Table 9 - [Q7] Do you support or oppose an offence of sedition which can be based on mere speech or writing without any consequences? (Interviewers to probe strength of opinion)
   Frequency  Percentage
 Very supportive 28  )  2.8  ) 
 Quite supportive 97  ) 125  9.6  ) 12.4 
 Half-half 58    5.7   
 Quite opposed 285  )  28.1  ) 
 Very opposed 305  ) 590  30.0  ) 58.1 
 Don't know / hard to say 243    23.9   
 Total 1,017    100.0   
 Base 1,032       
 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).


Table 10 - [Q8] Do you support or oppose to the introduction of the defence of "public interest" against charges of national security? Meaning that it would be legal to deliver a speech or writing in "public interest". (Interviewers probed strength of opinion)
   Frequency  Percentage
 Very supportive 187  )  19.8  ) 
 Quite supportive 381  ) 568  40.5  ) 60.3 
 Half-half 47    5.0   
 Quite opposed 105  )  11.1  ) 
 Very opposed 66  ) 171  7.0  ) 18.1 
 Don't know / hard to say 156    16.6   
 Total 941    100.0   
 Base 1,032       
 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).


Table 11 - [Q9] Do you support or oppose the police powers to enter your home without a court warrant? (Interviewers probed strength of opinion)
   Frequency  Percentage
 Very supportive 20  )  2.0  ) 
 Quite supportive 53  ) 73  5.2  ) 7.2 
 Half-half 31    3.0   
 Quite opposed 342  )  33.5  ) 
 Very opposed 524  ) 866  51.2  ) 84.7 
 Don't know / hard to say 54    5.2   
 Total 1,023    100.0   
 Base 1,032       
 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).


Table 12 - [Q10] Do you support or oppose Hong Kong creating the new offence of 'proscription' even though it is not required under Article 23, whereby some local organizations are banned because they are subordinate to some mainland organizations which are considered by the mainland government as endangering national security? (Interviewers probed strength of opinion)
   Frequency  Percentage
 Very supportive 67  )  6.6  ) 
 Quite supportive 211  ) 278  20.9  ) 27.5 
 Half-half 55    5.5   
 Quite opposed 238  )  23.5  ) 
 Very opposed 222  ) 460  21.9  ) 45.4 
 Don't know / hard to say 218    21.5   
 Total 1,011    100.0   
 Base 1,032       
 Missing case (s) 21       

Table 13 - [Q11] Shall any such local organization be banned, do you support or oppose the idea that mere association with such an organization can be harmful to national security? (Interviewers probed strength of opinion)
   Frequency  Percentage
 Very supportive 23  )  2.2  ) 
 Quite supportive 73  ) 96  7.2  ) 9.4 
 Half-half 68    6.7   
 Quite opposed 340  )  33.8  ) 
 Very opposed 290  ) 630  28.7  ) 62.5 
 Don't know / hard to say 215    21.3   
 Total 1,008    100.0   
 Base 1,032       
 Missing case (s) 24       

Table 14 - Summary table
  In support of gov't stand  Half-half  Opposed to gov't stand  Don't know / Hard to say  Sample base 
 General Inclination:
 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 
 Specific Proposal:
 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.