External interference won’t upset Hong Kong’s agenda

While the Hong Kong National Party faces a possible ban from Hong Kong authorities, its founder Andy Chan was invited Tuesday by the Hong Kong Foreign Correspondents’ Club (FCC) to deliver a speech, during which Chan defended his party’s proindependence moves. Chan made some astounding remarks. He compared Beijings rule over Hong Kong to colonialism. He said “Hong Kong has never experienced such horrid colonialism until 1997,” and independence is the only way to make the city truly democratic.

The Commissioner’s office of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Hong Kong and the Hong Kong government condemned the FCC for providing a platform for Chan’s views.

The FCC argued that it neither endorsed nor opposed the diverse views of speakers and said “its members, and the public at large, have the right... to hear the views of different sides in any debate.”

Apparently the FCC is making political provocations. Chan’s proindependence view runs counter to the Basic Law and the Constitution. Hong Kong society won’t consider inviting him to speak at a sensitive time as a neutral move, it has had an interfering effect.

Every society has its sensitive spots and boundaries for freedom of speech. Would it be acceptable if the FCC invited someone to speak in the US in support of terrorism or to advocate turning the country into a pure white society?

The West doesn’t deem voices supporting the independence of a certain region as a huge threat, but this is unbearable in China. Separatist views are categorized as freedom of speech in Western countries, but not in China. This deserves respect from all that stay in Hong Kong or other parts of China.

The FCC has behaved unreasonably with a Western-style language and logic, demonstrating its arrogance that Western values can go above Hong Kong’s laws and local social norms.

Freedom of speech is not absent in Hong Kong under “one country, two systems.” The Hong Kong Legislative Council and media have provided the opposition with channels to enable them to present ideological opposition and objection to current governance. But pro-independence views have been stated by the Chinese Constitution and the Basic Law as issues that break the bottom line.

Some extreme opponents use Hong Kong’s failure in Article 23 legislation to take radical moves that threaten China’s national security and enhance the city’s governance costs. Some external forces encourage opponents so as to gain more leverage in making trouble for China.

The FCC’s invitation to Chan was a typical way of external forces’ interfering in the affairs of Hong Kong and all of China, which should be condemned and disclosed. But this is just a typical conflict. We shouldn’t let the ugly performance by some in the FCC upset the agenda of Hong Kong and China as a whole.