The Central Government proclaimed overall jurisdiction over Hong Kong in the 2014 “White Paper”. In 2018, Hong Kong was included in the national policy of the Greater Bay Area. This year, the National Security Law was enacted for Hong Kong. All of these have turned the city upside down. However, Hong Kongers have never been consulted and the Chief Executive have never objected to any of these. Now, the authorities in Beijing would give final words on policy directions, while the rest would be taken care of by the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office and the Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government. The Chief Executive is left with something even a village head would be too high-ranking to handle.

At the end of last month, 12 Hong Kong people were intercepted in the mainland waters by Guangdong marine police when they were stealing into Taiwan, and were detained for illegally crossing the border. But Hua Chunying, spokesperson of Chinese Foreign Ministry, claimed the other day “they are not democratic activists, but people who attempt to separate Hong Kong from China”. The only response from the SAR government was “respect and would not interfere in law enforcement in other jurisdictions”, showing unequivocally it does not intend to safeguard the rights and interests of Hong Kong people.

Since July 1 this year, the SAR has entered an era of National Security Law. In just two months, the Hong Kong society has gone panicky for the drastic changes brought about by the Law. Moreover, obviously the Chinese Communist Party(CCP) has since been leveraging the Law to put in practice its overall jurisdiction over Hong Kong, which nonetheless calls into doubt the future of the SAR.

The National Security Law established for Hong Kong by the CCP is awash with unknowns by which even the Secretary for Justice is bewildered. Besides, the Law is applicable to foreigners but an official English edition of it is missing. What’s more, the four novel crimes laid down are ill-defined. However, the Law overrides that of Hong Kong, and the right to interpret it belongs not to the court, but the National People’s Congress Standing Committee. Worse still, the Office for Safeguarding National Security of the Central People’s Government is entitled the jurisdiction over criminal cases about jeopardizing national security, though the officials have stressed it is targeted at just a handful of people. Up till now, there have been three different criminal legal systems in the SAR – the original common law system, the system in which courts of Hong Kong carry out trials according to the National Security Law and the system in which trials are handled on the mainland. Can Carrie Lam publicly explain who will decide on which system is employed under what circumstances? If Hong Kong people are extradited to China, will their families be informed?

Furthermore, even though the National Security Law makes clear its purpose and main theme from the very beginning that the Law is enacted for the purpose of “ensuring the resolute, full and faithful implementation of the policy of One Country, Two Systems under which the people of Hong Kong administer Hong Kong with a high degree of autonomy” and in accordance with the Basic Law, a lot of articles in the Law suggest it goes counter to “one country, two systems”, Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong and high degree of autonomy enshrined in the Basic Law and thoroughly manifest CCP’s overall jurisdiction over Hong Kong. Given that Carrie Lam and top officials of the SAR are glaringly CCP’s mouthpieces, what is still left to be SAR government’s remit? Question marks are all over the place. The police and the Secretary for Justice carried out law enforcement selectively; the pro-CCP suspects remain out of the law’s reach; the Secretary for Justice weighed in to rescind civil lawsuits; innocent protesters and passers-by were indicted. Can Carrie Lam tell us whether these were done upon CCP’s directives? Most importantly, is this Hong Kong’s new normal?

Another instance is the SAR government accepted support from the Central Government to follow out the Universal Community Testing Programme in defiance of Hong Kong people’s privacy, and said clearly it would follow other cities in the Greater Bay Area to launch a health code system, while the health code system on the mainland is being connected to its social credit system to monitor personal whereabouts and opinions on the internet. In the near future, to execute its overall jurisdiction, the CCP will call on the SAR to erect multi-functional smart lampposts and facial identity scanners, as well as comprehensively adopting the smart payment system developed by the mainland. Equipped with all of these, the CCP will be able to immerse the SAR in China’s colossal surveillance network in one go.

As such, not only does Carrie Lam have to answer the above-mentioned questions, but also state clearly how she is going to administer Hong Kong – what rights and interests ever enjoyed by Hong Kong people pursuant to the law are still under protection? What deeds which used to be legal before July 1 are now illegal? Which part of our original lifestyle could not be enjoyed by Hong Kong people from July 1 onward?

Lastly, we have to ask: Actually based on which clause or article of the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law can the CCP unilaterally take back “one country, two systems”, Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong and high degree of autonomy, all of which are entitled to Hong Kong people by the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law?

(Martin Lee is a barrister and founder of Hong Kong’s Democratic Party.)

Click here for Chinese version

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

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