By Li Ping

The Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPCSC) will pass a new method for the formation of Hong Kong’s Chief Executive and the Legislative Council to replace Annex I and Annex II of the Basic Law. Through elevating the power of the Election Committee, setting up an election qualification review committee, election results and the “selectees” will be manipulated. With this, the legalization of this election game would legitimize the puppet government and puppet parliament, but is this the rule of law? No. This is exactly the continuation of the 2000-year “thief’s governance” and “rule of thief” that were gravely denounced by Tan Sitong. Laws that violate human rights and political ethics can force the people to obey, but “non-ethical forces are fearful but not feared”. Even if it does have a momentary deterrent effect, a collapse is eventual.

By legislating for Hong Kong, the CCP has turned democratic elections into a small circle game that it has full control over, but did it all in the name of “improving Hong Kong’s electoral system” and “protecting the right to vote and stand for election for permanent residents of the Hong Kong SAR”. Bearing such a strong ideological intervention in Hong Kong’s self-governing law, to borrow American jurist Ronald Dworkin’s saying, it is the “evil law”; to use Tan Sitong, the first of the “Six gentlemen of the Hundred days’ Reform” to be beheaded, it is the “rule of thief”.

In his book “The Study of Benevolence” (or “The Study of Ren” and “The Tudy of Humanity”, Tan Sitong accused the autocratic regime as a thief: The regime of these past 2000 years has been Qin politics, the big thief; The study of these past 2000 years has been the study of Xunzi, the hypocrite. The thieves use the hypocrites, and the hypocrites flatter the thieves.” Whether it is the promulgation of the Hong Kong National Security Law, or the introduction of the new Hong Kong electoral methods, they are the demonstration of the CCP regime’s rule of the thief coupled with the pro-CCP hypocrites’ flirtation. Using modern-day language to simplify, one side is forcing itself upon the other, the other side is bowing and licking.

Whether a law is evil, whether the rule of thief can convince people to obey, the key lies in whether it violates international human rights standards and the principles of justice and fairness. The key to governing the country and governing Hong Kong is whether the law represents the broadest rights of the people, whether the process of legislation respects mainstream public opinion, whether the voting of the law was truly performed to exercise the genuine representation of public opinion, and whether the execution of the law is fair and justice. It is not the 66 sessions of self-directed and self-performed talks participated by a thousand people who came to the so-called unanimous support by the majority of Hongkongers, and concluded with a rubber stamp.

Scholar Wong Kwok-kui wrote an article, titled “The rule of law is not the rule of order, let alone rule of the king”, several years ago, and pointed out that at the core of the rule of law, there is arbitrariness. Legislation and law enforcement cannot be arbitrarily exercised their power for personal preference or selfish purposes. Moreover, the government must abide by its own constitution so that the entire society can be built on a solid foundation of the rule of law. Otherwise, it will be the rule by law, the rule of the king, and not the rule of law.

In recent years, when the CCP leadership promoted the rule of law, they emphasized legislation and law enforcement under the leadership of the party. They have therefore been mocked as merely changing their postures when riding on the people’s heads. In essence, it is the continuation of the thousand-year tradition of the feudal “rule of the king’ in China. Last year, the CCP formulated the Hong Kong National Security Law, and this year, it is implementing new methods for choosing Hong Kong’s Chief Executive and Legislative Council. The most problematic is that while it is overthrowing the status of the Basic Law as Hong Kong’s mini-constitution, it wants to deceive the international community by not actually amending the Basic Law upright. Instead, through adding and amending annexes, the Basic Law itself is undermined. Moreover, it is arbitrarily moving the goalpost by having arbitrary interpretations of national security and patriotism all for the sake of maintaining the one-party dictatorship.

Su Shi of the Song Dynasty taught in his “Dewei Tang Ming” that: the reason why the world is observant of Bo Yi’s code, and employs the law of Gao Yau, is because of their virtues. If you are not a virtuous person, you might be fearful but not feared; if you are not a wise person, you might be obeyed but not followed.

Do the CCP and pro-CCP politicians who are cheering on for the deterrence effect of the Hong Kong National Law and Hong Kong electoral law honestly believe that the second Handover of Hong Kong that will ensure the perpetual “long-term stability” and autocracy” will be achieved through these two laws that violate human rights and deprive Hongkongers of their freedom?

History also reappears in a mocking manner. When the CCP and Hong Kong commies chose February 28 to make the mass arrest and prosecute the pro-democrats who participated in the primary election, people were reminded of the Taiwan 228 Incident and the Formosa trials. As the NPCSC decides to pass the Hong Kong electoral law on March 30, please be reminded that in history today, on March 30, 1940, Wang Jingwei’s puppet government, with the support of Japan, conducted its inauguration ceremony in Nanjing. Both the Kuomintang and the CCP called it the Wang Fake administration. As such, how should we call the Hong Kong government and legislation which will be selected by the “selection” method in accordance with the electoral law put forth by the CCP?

Click here for Chinese version

We invite you to join the conversation by submitting columns to our opinion section: [email protected]

Apple Daily reserves the right to refuse, abridge, alter or edit guest opinion columns for accuracy, length, clarity, and style, and the right to withdraw and withhold columns based on the discretion of our editorial page editors.

The opinions of the writers do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editorial board.

---------------------------------

Apple Daily’s all-new English Edition is now available on the mobile app: bit.ly/2yMMfQE

To download the latest version,

iOS: bit.ly/AD_iOS

Android: bit.ly/AD_android

Or search Appledaily in App Store or Google Play