Editorial: Hong Kong is not Zhejiang (Apple Daily HK)
蘋果日報 2020/06/17 14:21
by Koo Lap
On December 16 last year, Carrie Lam reported to Xi Jin-ping and Li Ke-qiang on her work in Beijing. At that time, she said that amid the social divergence and worsening plight, she had to “size up the situation” and await improved conditions for legislating Art.23 of the Basic Law. Less than half a year since, social vibes have not been better off, and with the ravages of the extradition law amendment bill and Wuhan pneumonia, the employment rate has been staggering uphill during economic slumps. Meanwhile, beyond its duty, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPC) has been meddling with the legislation of the national security law for Hong Kong hastily, intensifying the predicament as if it were not dreadful enough. Funnily enough, at the same time, Carrie Lam, thick-skinned and oblivious to her 9% approval rate in polls, has jumped up to serve as a salesperson of the law notwithstanding her cracked credit. After a year, this marionette has obviously forgotten the bitter fruits of pouring scorn on public opinions that objected to the forcing through of the evil extradition amendment bill.
National security law in the West is watched, checked and balanced
National security law in the West is watched, checked and balanced
Carrie Lam vowed to push through the extradition amendment bill to the second reading in the Legislative Council last year, flagrantly despising 1 million people taking to the streets. This time, she has camouflaged herself by seemingly accommodating public opinions, with words: “Within only 10 days, 3 million people have signed up to support the law…Apparently, citizens have had deep-seated hatred towards the intervention of foreign forces and the violent events having occurred in the past year”, etc. If public opinions were valued, the United Nations should be invited to preside over a referendum for making it clear how many citizens would come out in favour of the Hong Kong version of national security law. Why has Carrie Lam dismissed the almost unanimous public opinion that an independent inquiry into the truth of the anti-extradition movement has to be set up?
Who does not know that the legislation of Art.23 of the Basic Law has been put on hold for 23 years since the handover Hong Kong’s sovereignty because of the unambiguous voice of 0.5 million people in a demonstration under the scorching sun that kicked former Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa and former Secretary for Security Regina Yip out? Over all these years, the Mainland has never been a bystander regarding the affairs of Hong Kong, proffering hostile foreign forces with an opportunity to fish in troubled waters. The fact is the stance of Hong Kong people had been so firm and univocal that chief executives as “combative” as Carrie Lam would not have dared to despise the need for “sizing up the situation”. So, why has the Mainland brushed aside the unanimous objection from the international community to force through the law?
Carrie Lam parroted the words of others that “without the Hong Kong version of national security law, there would not be a robust mechanism that safeguards national security, which is not only rather risky to 7 million people in Hong Kong, but also to 1.4 billion people in the whole country”. She has not said a word how a land of 1,000 km² can jeopardize the Mainland of 9.6 million km², but not steered clear of saying that national security overrides individual freedom. The objective of enacting the Hong Kong version of national security law is plain as the nose on our faces. It is only aimed at depriving Hong Kong people of the “rights and freedom” enshrined in Art.4 of the Basic Law and the “aboriginal capitalist system and life style to be preserved for 50 years” promised in Art.5 of the same Law.
Xia Bao-long’s iron fist triggers off international backlashes
Admittedly, individual freedom is never absolute. In all other countries, individual freedom is also subject to a lot of preset conditions. Yet, even though the national security laws in Europe and the US override individual freedom, not like the black-box operation in the National People's Congress, the legislative procedures are open to public debates and deliberations. And once they are in effect, the law enforcement in those countries are monitored by the media, and checked and balanced by courts. Only with these is individual freedom safeguarded. Carrie Lam admitted that “the Hong Kong version of national security law is not retroactive under normal circumstances”, which is tantamount to saying that there are no constant principles governing the law enforcement, and the rulers can manipulate it at will to quell dissidents.
Most probably, that is why in February this year, Xi Jin-ping designated Xia Bao-long, a well-known hardliner and Xi’s trusted subordinate who should have retired, as the Director of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office (HKMAO). Xia was famous for tearing down churches’ crucifixes in Zhejiang when he headed the administration there. After taking over the post in the HKMAO, he has showcased his tough style and prowess by redefining the protest in Hong Kong, which actually stems from “social contradictions”, as a “political issue” which needs to be resolved with an iron fist. Overpowering by overwhelming force has always been a customary tactic deployed by the CCP to tackle dissidents. There is no exception for this time.
Who does not know that the legislation of Art.23 of the Basic Law has been put on hold for 23 years since the handover Hong Kong’s sovereignty because of the unambiguous voice of 0.5 million people in a demonstration under the scorching sun that kicked former Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa and former Secretary for Security Regina Yip out? Over all these years, the Mainland has never been a bystander regarding the affairs of Hong Kong, proffering hostile foreign forces with an opportunity to fish in troubled waters. The fact is the stance of Hong Kong people had been so firm and univocal that chief executives as “combative” as Carrie Lam would not have dared to despise the need for “sizing up the situation”. So, why has the Mainland brushed aside the unanimous objection from the international community to force through the law?
Carrie Lam parroted the words of others that “without the Hong Kong version of national security law, there would not be a robust mechanism that safeguards national security, which is not only rather risky to 7 million people in Hong Kong, but also to 1.4 billion people in the whole country”. She has not said a word how a land of 1,000 km² can jeopardize the Mainland of 9.6 million km², but not steered clear of saying that national security overrides individual freedom. The objective of enacting the Hong Kong version of national security law is plain as the nose on our faces. It is only aimed at depriving Hong Kong people of the “rights and freedom” enshrined in Art.4 of the Basic Law and the “aboriginal capitalist system and life style to be preserved for 50 years” promised in Art.5 of the same Law.
Xia Bao-long’s iron fist triggers off international backlashes
Admittedly, individual freedom is never absolute. In all other countries, individual freedom is also subject to a lot of preset conditions. Yet, even though the national security laws in Europe and the US override individual freedom, not like the black-box operation in the National People's Congress, the legislative procedures are open to public debates and deliberations. And once they are in effect, the law enforcement in those countries are monitored by the media, and checked and balanced by courts. Only with these is individual freedom safeguarded. Carrie Lam admitted that “the Hong Kong version of national security law is not retroactive under normal circumstances”, which is tantamount to saying that there are no constant principles governing the law enforcement, and the rulers can manipulate it at will to quell dissidents.
Most probably, that is why in February this year, Xi Jin-ping designated Xia Bao-long, a well-known hardliner and Xi’s trusted subordinate who should have retired, as the Director of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office (HKMAO). Xia was famous for tearing down churches’ crucifixes in Zhejiang when he headed the administration there. After taking over the post in the HKMAO, he has showcased his tough style and prowess by redefining the protest in Hong Kong, which actually stems from “social contradictions”, as a “political issue” which needs to be resolved with an iron fist. Overpowering by overwhelming force has always been a customary tactic deployed by the CCP to tackle dissidents. There is no exception for this time.
Nonetheless, Hong Kong is not Zhejiang, and an international financial centre is not a church’s crucifix. Not only will an iron fist trigger international backlashes, but also get the Mainland more and more isolated in the international community.
---------------------------------
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
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