The Guardian view on Hong Kong’s new national security law: double the pain
Residents of Hong Kong could be forgiven for a sense of deja vu. A draconian new national security law (NSL), broad in scope and harsh in penalties, is trampling over basic rights. It first happened four years ago, in response to the extraordinary uprising that saw one in four people take to the streets to defend the region’s autonomy and way of life.
Beijing imposed the 2020 law upon the territory, demolishing any vestiges of its claim to run Hong Kong on a “one country, two systems” basis. That legislation, both vague and sweeping, claims jurisdiction over acts committed by anyone anywhere in the world. It introduced trials without juries. It is so stringent that a police chief said that even watching a documentary on the protests might breach the law.
And yet it was still not enough. A second NSL has now been passed, at speed, by Hong Kong’s own legislative council (LegCo), where any vestige of dissent has vanished: former LegCo members are among those already on trial under the 2020 law, along with the newspaper publisher Jimmy Lai, activist Joshua Wong, scholar Benny Tai and others. In all, thousands have been detained or prosecuted under it.
The new NSL is even more punitive and far reaching: from this weekend, when it takes effect, treason, insurrection and sabotage will be punishable with a life sentence. Jail terms for sedition will rise from two to seven years, or 10 if the perpetrator is found to have colluded with a foreign force. Detention without charge, currently limited to 48 hours, can be extended to 16 days. Simply owning old copies of the pro-democracy paper Apple Daily could breach the law on seditious materials without a “reasonable defence”.
Officials say the new law is needed to “plug loopholes” and prevent a resurgence of the unrest in 2019, which included violence sparked by the police’s use of excessive force. But the new law, pushed through the LegCo, is as much a symbol as a tool, reinforcing the message of Hong Kong’s submission. The Basic Law – the city’s mini-constitution after handover – stated that the city would pass its own national security laws. But the first attempt in 2003 prompted such a backlash that officials gave up. It shaped resistance in Hong Kong; it also crystallised Beijing’s determination to get the region under control.
The legislation is a striking choice of priority as the city’s economy continues to languish. Hong Kong faces growing competition from redeveloped mainland cities, and is seeing foreign companies decamp elsewhere as Beijing tightens its political grip. The EU is among those warning that the new law raises concerns about the city’s future as a business hub.
Many Hong Kong residents have already left, seeing little future there for themselves or their children. More are likely to follow. They deserve sympathy and need support, especially where they face intimidation: police have issued bounties for activists who left. Britain has a particular responsibility. As a colonial power it showed little interest in democracy until it was too late, and it did too little afterwards to defend the rights promised to Hong Kong. The current government’s determination to roll back longstanding rights of protest also makes it easier for China to accuse London of double standards. But hypocrisy is not why Beijing objects to criticism from overseas. Having crushed dissent, it now seeks to make Hong Kong forget that there was an alternative.