West’s double standards on security legislation are clear
David Cottam says claims that new laws will damage HKSAR’s future as a business hub are straight from the anti-China playbook
Article 23 of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region requires that its government passes national security laws to prohibit seven specific offenses. These are treason, secession, sedition, subversion, theft of State secrets, conduct of political activities in the region by foreign political organizations, and the establishment of ties between local and foreign political organizations.
As everyone in Hong Kong must surely now know, after a delay of 27 years, these offenses have finally been covered by the combined National Security Law for Hong Kong (NSL) of June 2020 and the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, passed by the Legislative Council on March 19. As all these offenses are regarded as serious throughout the world, this should have meant that throughout the process of consulting on and enacting the Article 23 legislation, we could have expected nothing but helpful, constructive and supportive comments from Western politicians and the Western media. After all, Western governments have led by example in enacting laws to counter these offenses. Such laws are key elements of national security everywhere and seen as a fundamental duty of every Western government. Hong Kong has merely aligned itself with governments in the West and around the world in pursuing these national security objectives and finally fulfilling its obligation under the Basic Law.
Unfortunately, however, when it comes to the West’s stance on Hong Kong and China as a whole, logic rarely gains the upper hand over prejudice and double standards. Indeed, if recent comments by Western politicians and media outlets are anything to go by, there seems to be a wilful determination by many in the West to portray Hong Kong in the worst possible light for enacting security legislation which is already standard practice in the West.
Even a highly respected British newspaper like The Guardian has joined the chorus of criticism, claiming that the “draconian” new law, with its “harsh” penalties, “is trampling over basic rights”. Its March 21 editorial refers to Hong Kong’s new law as “even more punitive and far reaching” than the NSL of 2020, citing that “treason, insurrection and sabotage will be punishable with a life sentence”. It fails to make clear, however, that this is the maximum sentence, or that it is completely in line with life penalties for treason in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, France, Germany, Italy and Singapore. In the United States, the maximum penalty is death.
The Guardian continues its case stating: “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.” Again, it fails to mention that this is the maximum penalty, or that it is a more lenient sentence than in either the US (20 years) or Canada (14 years). Nor does it mention that in the UK, sedition remained an offense until its abolition in 2009, when its terms had been largely superseded by the 2006 Terrorism Act making it an offense to encourage or glorify terrorism, with a maximum sentence of 15 years.
The Guardian’s editorial continues: “Detention without charge, currently limited to 48 hours, can be extended to 16 days.” (Editor’s note: The mentioned extension is capped at 14 days under the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance.) It fails, however, to mention that under the terms of the UK’s Terrorism Act, suspects can also be held in detention without charge for a similar time (14 days). Neither does it mention that in the US, indefinite detention without charge has been taking place in Guantanamo Bay since 2002.
Finally, The Guardian asserts: “Simply owning old copies of the pro-democracy paper Apple Daily could breach the law on seditious materials without a ‘reasonable defence’.” Technically, this may be correct. However, in reality it is not something that should cause anyone to lose out on sleep. First, it would have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the newspapers contained material which had a “seditious intention”. Second, it would have to be proved that the owner of the papers knew that the material had a seditious intention. Third, and most importantly, it would have to be proved that the owner had no “reasonable excuse” for its possession. Reasonable excuses could include having forgotten about the newspapers, or keeping them purely as items of historical interest, or indeed any other reason other than specifically intending to use them for seditious purposes. In any prosecution there would need to be clear proof of “seditious intention”. Merely owning a copy of a controversial newspaper doesn’t meet this strict criterion. A similar analogy would be having a kitchen knife in your home. You really don’t need to worry that this could breach the law unless it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that you were intending to use it to commit murder or a terrorist atrocity.
Similar articles condemning Hong Kong’s new security laws, without any reference to comparable laws in the West, can be found across the whole spectrum of the British and US media. They include widespread claims that the new laws will damage Hong Kong’s future as a business hub. This is straight from the anti-China playbook, suggesting that global investors should abandon Hong Kong in favor of alternatives such as Singapore. Once again, however, any objective analysis reveals such claims are completely illogical.
Singapore’s security laws are remarkably similar to those of Hong Kong, including laws against treason, terrorism, foreign subversion, espionage and acts of violence or hatred. It also allows the government to detain any person who poses an imminent threat to Singapore’s security for up to two years without charge (compared with 14 days in Hong Kong). Street gatherings and public demonstrations are illegal if they do not have police permission, and foreigners who are not permanent residents are prohibited from attending any outdoor demonstrations regardless of police permission. Filming an illegal gathering is also forbidden, as is wearing “causerelated” T-shirts or displaying “case-related” banners in public. Additionally, the death penalty remains for some offenses, including murder and drug trafficking. Indeed, penalties for all drug offenses are severe and possession of even very small quantities of illegal substances can lead to the death penalty.
Despite Singapore’s security laws being similar to those of Hong Kong, and despite its harsher penal code, it is never condemned in the West in the way that Hong Kong now is. On the contrary, Singapore is often praised in the West as a successful state with an economic model to be emulated. Portraying Hong Kong’s new security laws as a reason for investors to abandon it for Singapore is completely irrational and a classic case of double standards.
Moreover, far from posing a threat to Hong Kong’s investors, the new security laws are actually safeguarding them. By aligning the city with Western and Singaporean security laws, Hong Kong is protecting investors against the return of the sort of chaos, disruption and vandalism with which they had to contend during the violent protests of 2019-20.
We should certainly not let Western scaremongering undermine our confidence in Hong Kong’s economic future. Instead, we should focus on the positive economic fundamentals. Hong Kong remains the primary gateway to the Chinese mainland and a hub for global and regional business. It is the only Chinese city with no foreign exchange controls. It has a low taxation environment, a respected legal system and world-class infrastructure. Most importantly, its greatest strength remains what it always has been — the extraordinary dynamism, work ethic and creativity of its people. This is what made Hong Kong a success story in the past and will do so again in the future.