LegCo members have no ‘freedom to be unpatriotic’
Kwok Chung-hang explains the urgent need to strengthen a sense of political identity among LegCo members to make them love the country
As soon as the government announced the long-awaited National Anthem Bill, the opposition camp immediately voiced their strong opposition against it. Eddie Chu Hoi-dick even said many provisions in the bill should be removed. For instance, clauses related to the swearing-in of Legislative Council members, the teaching of national anthem in primary and secondary schools, and the comportment required of people when national anthem is sung should be removed so that the ordinance will be made “less stringent”. He said the current version of the bill would infringe people’s freedom not to express patriotism and would even affect the swearing-in of LegCo members. The core purpose of the bill is to demand respect for the national anthem and allegiance to the country. Chu’s notion about “freedom not to express patriotism” is simply a pseudo-proposition. Lawmakers are required to make oath to uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong SAR under “one country”. Therefore, lawmakers need to love the country and the SAR; like legislators anywhere in the world, Hong Kong lawmakers do not have the freedom not to be patriotic. The fact that Chu resists the national anthem betrays his true separatist colors. Separatists like him are not qualified to be a member of the LegCo.
According to the National Anthem Law adopted and enforced on the Chinese mainland, the national anthem must be played and sung during the swearing-in ceremony for officials at all levels, including the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China Central Committee, the National People’s Congress, the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference as well as judges and law enforcement officers. This is not only intended to remind them of their obligation to respect their rights and responsibilities but also serves as a confirmation of their political loyalty. This legislative intent should
The fact that the opposition camp has expressed their vehement objection to the bill reveals that the real issue is political allegiance and the recognition of “one country”.
be embodied in the national anthem law Hong Kong is going to enact. In addition to penalizing any act that insults the national anthem, the local legislation naturally should make it imperative to play the national anthem during the inauguration ceremony of legislators and other public officials.
The fact that the opposition camp has expressed their vehement objection to the bill reveals that the real issue is political allegiance and the recognition of “one country”. Legislator Claudia Mo Man-ching said the broadcast of the national anthem would imply that “one country” precedes “two systems”. This, together with Chu’s preposterous suggestion about “freedom to be unpatriotic”, indicates that they do not simply oppose to the anthem, but also refuse to recognize the principle of “one country” and to pledge allegiance to the HKSAR under “one country”.
Indeed, patriotism cannot be imposed on people like Chu and Mo. But we need to bear in mind that they are not ordinary citizens but members of the LegCo who are bestowed with public powers and generous remunerations, hence there is no such thing as “freedom to be unpatriotic”. Article 104 of the Basic Law stipulates that when a member of the LegCo assumes office, he/she must, in accordance with the law, swear to uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the HKSAR of the People’s Republic of China. Here comes the question: How can unpatriotic people abide by this article?
In fact, patriotism is the fundamental responsibility and personal integrity of politicians all over the world. Members of the US Congress and the British House of Commons never entertain the idea of “freedom to be unpatriotic”, nor do they oppose the broadcasting of their national anthem during their inauguration and other public occasions. Therefore, what does it imply when the enactment of national anthem law has encountered no resistance in any other place but HKSAR?
The National Anthem Bill is not intended to chastise, but rather to demand respect for the national anthem and the country, as well as to establish a sense of political belonging to the country. As an important part of the establishment, LegCo members, regardless of their political stance, do not have any reason to reject their national identity, nor do they have the right to not recognize state sovereignty and the constitutional power of the central government over Hong Kong. Hence, it is not a ritual to play the national anthem when LegCo members assume office; it serves the objective of manifesting the political identity of the LegCo and demonstrating to which country the likes of Chu and Mo are loyal.
It only takes the National Anthem Bill to test the patriotism of the opposition camp. The fact that the likes of Chu have tried every trick to pull down the bill has unmistakably exposed their resistance to pledge allegiance to the country as well as their implicit support for Hong Kong independence.
The playing of national anthem during lawmakers’ inauguration, similar to their legally binding oath, serves the purpose of establishing their sense of political identity. The vehement objection from the opposition camp provides justification for an urgent need to strengthen the sense of political identity among LegCo members. As for Chu’s act of defiance to fight for “freedom to be unpatriotic”, he certainly does not deserve to be a lawmaker. The disqualification of his candidacy for the next election is very much foreseen.