Editorial:National Security Law Troubles the Nobilities (Apple Daily HK)
The Central Government broke news of the National Security legislation in Hong Kong, asserting to diminish independent movements and to stop violence and disorder. Many local nobilities voiced their support immediately, despite doubts on the legislation’s legitimacy under Article 23 of the Basic Law, and its effectiveness in curbing violence and combating terrorist activities. Recently, police brutality had ignited large-scale riots in the U.S., showing that despite having harsh national security and anti-terrorist laws, violence cannot be deterred if issues like police brutality and polarisation in the society are not properly handled.
Capital Flight Difficult Under Article 23
Hong Kong was returned to China for almost 23 years, the HKSAR government had yet to legislate the Article 23 of the Basic Law, forcing the Chinese central government to step in. Former Chief Executives are indeed at fault and should be accountable. Since the Handover, the Legislative Council has been controlled by the pro-establishment camp, nothing has barred them from the legislation. But there are certainly reasons behind the delay, how could we blame them?
In fact, many local nobilities lacked confidence in the China Communist Party. They secured their rights by getting residency abroad for themselves and their families. They stayed in Hong Kong only for the sake of making more money. That is why they are against universal suffrage and are watchful towards Article 23, worrying that these policies will affect their political benefits and capital flight pathways. Since 1997, local nobilities have been fighting for their self-interests. They built relationships with the Liaison Office (LOCPG) and they report issues to Beijing. It should be “Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong, with a high degree of autonomy”, but these people forced the central government to interfere with Hong Kong affairs, distribute political and economic benefits, and destroy “One Country, Two Systems”, and trapped the Central Government into all these deeds.
The first HKSAR Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa came from business backgrounds, his inclination towards large corporations had long torn the business sector apart. In 2002, Tung was re-elected without opposition, he then pushed the legislation of the Article 23 despite economic recession following the SARS outbreak, triggering 500 thousands to protest. In the end, pro-establishment legislator James Tien switched sides and showed his opposition to the law by resigning from the Executive Council, and so Tung withdrew the proposal. In the Chief Executive election of 2012, the pro-establishment camp split and scandalised candidates with extra-marital affairs, unauthorised building works, failure to declare conflict of interest; there was also a leak of Executive Council documents. Finally, Leung Chun-ying, backed by Tung, defeated Henry Tang and became Chief Executive. Local tycoons lost their edge and many retreated from the Mainland and Hong Kong market.
5 years later, in the Chief Executive election of 2017, Tung did not support Leung Chun-ying to renew his terms of office, and had endorsed Carrie Lam instead. After Carrie Lam stepped up in office, she perplexingly pushed forward the extradition bill in June 2019, petrifying nobilities whose crimes were all over the places, forcing them to be ready to flee for their lives. Some commercial sector LegCo members actually opposed the amendment, despite showing ostensible support.
Corrupted Officials in Fear
Since June last year, Hong Kong has seen multiple anti-extradition protests participated by millions, even businessmen who supported the government took to the streets. Peaceful demonstrations had turned into violent clashes in the LegCo, government bodies and LOCPG. Carrie Lam refused to withdraw the bill and establish independent inquiry into the root of clashes, causing violence to multiply.
Recently, the HKSAR officials, the pro-establishment politicians and their accomplices have voiced their support for the National Security law in Hong Kong, thinking that it would deter pan-democrats. In fact, the democrats from the time before the Handover had always been “peaceful, rational and non-violent”. They insist on “One Country, Two Systems; Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong, and high degree of autonomy”, and they are against violence and the call for independence. The democrats are concerned that the National Security law will bring injustice and violations of human rights, jeopardising “One Country, Two Systems” and end up doing harm to Hong Kong’s status as an international financial centre.
Local nobilities are most terrified by the National Security laws in Hong Kong. They used to be in closest contact with state secrets and HKSAR secrets. They often concealed the whereabouts of their capital using offshore companies. And they frequently deal with diminished Mainland officials, and are even involved in bribery and power play among them. With the introduction of National Security law, local nobilities in close contact with corrupt Mainland officials would try to break away, in fear of being squared up.
---------------------------------
Apple Daily’s all-new English Edition is now available on the mobile app
To know more: https://bit.ly/2yMMfQE