Opposition camp must learn from Benny Tai’s mistakes
It is surprising that an academic can create so much political trouble in Hong Kong. Benny Tai Yiu-ting, an associate professor of law at University of Hong Kong, attended a seminar in Taipei last week and claimed that the SAR could consider “becoming an independent state”. Tai surprised many by openly advocating “Hong Kong independence”. The central government, the HKSAR Government and the pro-establishment camp responded quickly by issuing a scathing condemnation. There is no doubt that any attempt to separate Hong Kong from the motherland will violate the national Constitution, the Basic Law and relevant laws in Hong Kong.
In response to such widespread condemnation, Tai tried to use “freedom of speech” as an excuse to divert public attention. He accused the government of attacking free speech and insisted he had only suggested independence could be one of the options for Hong Kong someday. However, the claim of “freedom of speech” is hard to take. We all remember the illegal “Occupy Central” movement, which brought unrest to society. The movement started from Tai’s ideas and discussions on civil disobedience in Hong Kong — all in the name of “freedom of speech”. Tai’s profile made the central government hard to believe that his comments are just an academic discussion. Moreover, Tai argued that he had already published similar remarks in newspapers earlier and there was nothing new about them. Tai tried to play down his actions as just expressing an “opinion”. The truth is Tai was conducting political actions when he joined the forum. It is worth noting that the forum organizer Taiwan Youth Anti-Communist Corps is a pro-“Taiwan independence” group. What he said at the forum was not just words, but deliberate political actions.
Indeed, Tai realized that the “freedom” claim is invalid. In a separate statement issued on Friday night,
Tai claimed he neither supported the notion of “Hong Kong independence”, nor would he advocate a “selfdetermination” referendum because the “conditions are not yet ripe”. Tai’s sophistry reflects a guilty conscience, which is equally evident in the opposition camp’s response to condemnations of Tai. Superficially, they expressed concern about attacks on “freedom of speech” by staging a protest on Monday. But that was merely a political gesture. Only a few opposition parties — the League of Social Democrats, People’s Power and the Civic Party — participated in Monday’s protest, suggesting that the rest of them decided to be absent.
The response of the opposition camp is noteworthy. They should remember the key message delivered by President Xi Jinping last July. He said that any attempt to endanger China’s sovereignty and security, challenge the power of the central government or use Hong Kong to carry out sabotage activities against the mainland was an act that crosses the “red line” and is “absolutely impermissible”. The following actions taken by the SAR government revealed its determination that “freedom of speech” should have a bottom line when national security and social order are concerned.
Tai’s actions also brought trouble to the opposition camp. It is obvious that Tai intentionally tested a grey area by touching a nerve of the central government. However, the political risk is borne by the whole opposition camp. As noted by Professor Lau Siukai, it was rare for the government to issue a statement directly in response to comments made by an individual. Tai’s attempt ruined efforts to rebuild trust and harmony between the central government and the “pan-democrats”. Moreover, Tai’s case revealed the loopholes in the existing law, which are unhelpful to safeguarding national security and therefore highlighted the need to enact legislation under Article 23 of the Basic Law.
Charles T. Munger is a partner and friend of Warren Buffett. Even Buffett appreciated Charles’ wisdom. In his book, Poor Charlie’s Almanack, Charles shared with readers his key to success: The power of avoiding stupidity. “All I want to know is where I’m going to die. So I’ll never go there.”
Even though some people deliberately challenged the bottom line, the opposition camp should not unwisely support such divisive people for the sake of their political lives.