Even though the national security law has yet to be implemented, some major pro-establishment figures have already stepped up to declare Hong Kong people guilty. Tam Yiuchung, a delegate to the National People’s Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC), has recently said that state power encompassed the government of the Special Administrative Region, and therefore shouting slogan like “Step down, Chief Executive!” would be deemed as committing the “offense of subverting state power”.

Hong Kong people have almost made it a habit to call for the stepping down of Carrie Lam. Despite the fact that the urge is yet to be realized, it has served as a safety valve that alleviates social discontent. More importantly, it is a manifestation of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the Basic Law, one of the human rights we are all entitled to.

But how come Tam is able to convict Hong Kong people of the crime even before the national security law is formally announced?

Why going against Carrie Lam must be wrong? While she was trying to force through the extradition law, it was the strong opposition of two million Hong Kong people that made her announce that “the bill is dead”. So, if she had done nothing wrong, why would she have withdrawn the bill? If she could only be right, why would she have chosen to back down in front of two million protesters? And if the Hong Kong people had not been opposed to it at that time, how could she have been aware of her fault?

This comes to be a vivid demonstration that it is not a problem for the Hong Kong people to oppose the chief executive. Rather, it is something we should do, not only because we have the right to do so, but also because it is the way the public supervise the government. So, is Carrie Lam exempted from all criticisms because her status is as superior as Xi Jinping?

With Tam’s logic, Carrie Lam can’t be opposed because she represents the SAR government. So, as a delegate to the NPCSC, can he himself be opposed? Will such an act be interpreted as a revolt against the NPC, the highest state-level institution?

How about opposing Ng Chaupei, a delegate to the NPC? Is it also an offense of subverting the state power?

In fact, this is communist China’s “rule of law”, which allows relentless incrimination. State power can be the equivalent of the Chief Executive, Chief Secretary for Administration, Secretary for Education, all pro-establishment lawmakers as well as anyone who is claimed to be “patriotic”.

Interesting enough though, there are millions of Hong Kong people opposing the above figures, thus potentially committing the crime of subversion. Perhaps these are the “handful few” that communist China said the national security law is supposed to pinpoint. And perhaps what Hong Kong needs to build most now is nothing but prisons.

(Ngan Shun Kau is a veteran publisher and writer. His publications and works are award-winning.)

Click here for Chinese version.

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

Apple Daily mobile app latest version DOWNLOAD NOW