Security law not intended to infringe on freedom

IT has been one whole year since the “anti-extradition Bill movement” protests began in Hong Kong and the protesters’ violent acts continue. The violence has left nothing but deep scars.

In the latter half of 2019, Hong Kong tourist arrivals dropped 39.1% while the unemployment rate rose to 3.3%. For the first time in 10 years, Hong Kong is experiencing negative economic growth. It has also lost the title of the freest economy in the world which it held for 25 years – it dropped to sixth place in the latest rankings.

Among all the questions and confusions, one fact is beyond obvious. The current disarray in Hong Kong is almost foreordained, as it has long been totally defenceless in terms of national security. Since its establishment in 1997, the Special Administrative Region (SAR) has not adopted any specific legislation for crimes against national security, such as secessionist acts, leaving an overt legislative loophole. This despite Article 23 of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong SAR which provides that the SAR “shall enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People’s Government, or theft of state secrets”. However, every effort by the SAR government to enact Article 23 has been thwarted by anti-China rioters and external hostile forces.

Under the current grim circumstances, we have to plug the loophole. In this regard, the third session of the 13th National People’s Congress (NPC) recently adopted the “Decision to Establish and Improve a Legal System and Enforcement Mechanisms for Safeguarding National Security in Hong Kong SAR”, enabling the NPC to entrust its standing committee to make national security laws to be promulgated and enforced in Hong Kong.

Here I would like to reiterate some facts. Firstly, a central government will always be responsible for national security. It is so in China and in all countries. Hong Kong is an administrative region directly under the jurisdiction of the central government of China, hence the NPC, China’s supreme legislative body, has full rights to legislate national security in Hong Kong.

Secondly, Hong Kong belongs to China. The jurisdiction of the central government of China over Hong Kong, as well as China’s lawful right to safeguard its sovereignty and security, should be duly respected.

Thirdly, the “one country, two systems” principle would be better implemented with national security legislation in Hong Kong. If not for great respect for the “one country, two systems” principle, the NPC could simply apply the National Security Law of China in Hong Kong. Instead, it has abided by the principle and gone to great lengths to set up a specific law to suit Hong Kong’s conditions.

The point is that national security legislation in Hong Kong does not intend to interfere with the region’s high degree of autonomy or the rights and freedom of Hong Kong residents, or the lawful rights of foreign investors. It targets only schemes of secession and subversion, terrorist acts that harm national security, and external forces interfering in Hong Kong’s affairs.

More than 1.1 million Hong Kong compatriots signed the “Supporting National Security Legislation” online petition in the first three days of its appearance, demonstrating that the legislation is exactly what the people want.

I sincerely hope that the national security law will be the turning point for Hong Kong to stop all the chaos and start afresh. I believe that soon, the Pearl of the Orient will glow once again.