Amendment to the electoral arrangement of Hong Kong is on the agenda of

the plenum of the National People’s Congress, which has been inaugurated in Beijing. The spokesperson declared overall implementation of the principle of “patriots ruling Hong Kong”. The related alteration in the current system does not only get the pro- democracy camp in the cross hairs, but also has profound impact on the pro-establishment camp. Tian Feillong, Director of the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macao Studies, professed earlier in an article that the central government needs no “rubber stamps or loyal good-for-nothings”, which is evidently a warning to the pro-establishment camp. However, a requirement like this is a bit too harsh. At the end of the day, under the current system and power structure, loyalists are bound to be good for nothing.

The so-called “patriots ruling Hong Kong” principle was floated as early as after 7.1 demonstration in 2003. Recollecting what happened back then, one will find that Hong Kong people would show a contemptuous disregard for “patriots” even in those days. The public opinion at the time already pointed out Hong Kong people had been exceedingly patriotic, and they would sing Long de chuanren (descendants of the dragon) when taking to the streets in support of the democratic movement on the mainland in June 1989. However, the way Hong Kong people grasp patriotism is broader than the way China’s government understands it, allowing of different interpretations. To put it bluntly, the so-called “patriots ruling Hong Kong” principle is to reduce the broader patriotism of Hong Kong people to ignorance of or hesitation in being patriotic, and is a pretext in high-sounding tone and manner for vetting participants in political events as one can only be acknowledged to be a patriot by the China’s government. As far as I remember, questions like these were asked in those days: Who dares to say Szeto Wah is not patriotic? Will the China’s government take him on as the Chief Executive?

After all, being just a veneer, patriotism implied by “patriots ruling Hong Kong” is actually a demand put on politicians in Hong Kong that they have to pledge political loyalty. But to whom and to what extent is the loyalty pledged? If one is only required to respect the political setting based on the Basic Law, just few would be screened out by common sense. Basically, if anyone tries to topple the China’s government by force, the person can be brought to justice by means of a lot of existing laws in Hong Kong even before the enactment of the National Security Law, and he/she can be disqualified from running in elections according to the articles concerning a conviction for a serious crime in the Legislative Council Ordinance. All of this has been taken care of in the existing arrangement, so the unnecessary move the central government made is literally superfluous.

Nonetheless, the loyalty requested by the central government is intended not only to ban toppling the government by force, but also cast aside all possible opposition forces. Take for example being respectful towards the political setting based on the Basic Law. Theoretically, it does not mean every single article of the Basic Law supported, as Carrie Lam has also said she did not agree on every clause of the Budget. Yet pro-democracy camp will be deemed insurgent if they merely look into possible amendment to the Basic Law allowed by the Law itself for the sake of strengthening the protection of the high degree of autonomy of Hong Kong. What’s more, the criticisms by the pro-democracy camp of the central government for not being respectful to the Basic Law by misrepresenting and adding on to the Law layers of unauthorized construction via interpretations of the Law and various decisions time and again should have been reckoned, in principle, respecting the political setting based on the Basic Law. But in reality, they were criticized conversely for not acknowledging the central government authority.

So, unmistakably, the so-called loyalty has to be pledged not to the system, but the authority. In fact, the so-called system in mainland China is an extension of authority. In the eyes of the China’s government, it is hardly possible for one to pledge loyalty only to a system, but not authority.

Now, it is not difficult for us to understand why loyalists are bound to be good for nothing.

In a democracy, as party alternation is orderly, a party stepping down can stage a comeback next time. In a totalitarian polity, taking the helm of the state is about life and death with nothing in between. In view of this, the person in power cannot put up with any political forces independent of him. When all political forces are eliminated, the ones left are surely good for nothing.

Let’s take a look at the history of Hong Kong. During the British-Hong Kong era, how did the government deal with governance issues? They understood well that a society effectively running by itself has to count on all trades and professions being exceptionally well self-managed. The celebrated and professional talents from various specialisms would then be taken on by the government, so that they would criticize the system within the system instead of outside the system. In Hong Kong today, the entire equation has been turned upside down. A notable criticizing the government in public will end up being blackballed, and replaced by a servile and obsequious lackey. Innumerable cases like this have been seen in recent years.

The reason behind is conspicuous: It is natural for people of a high calibre to be held in high esteem in the society for their credibility, which is not bestowed upon them by the government. Gaining high social status without any help from the government means they, immune from pledging loyalty to the regime, are definitely mistrusted under a totalitarian polity, hence expelled. With this premise, being loyal goes hand in hand with being good for nothing for those not good for nothing are not categorized as being authentically loyal.

So, while “patriots ruling Hong Kong” has been a pseudo proposition, an attempt at nabbing more authority has been true, since always. Let’s not forget that the state belongs to the people. It is self-contradictory to criticize a public opinion representative elected by the people for being not patriotic. Since the people are masters of the state, they are the only ones entitled to decide who is patriotic. If an elected delegate goes against the people and “unpatriotic”, simply kick him/her out with votes next time. Why is it made so complicated?

(Leung Kai-chi, current affairs commentator)

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