New China law ‘not sinister’
The current anti-terrorism laws in all Western countries are by far more overreaching and draconian than the provision made on the basis of Article 23 of the Hong Kong Basic Law.
One of the key attributes in any country is its sovereignty – partly determined by its independent policies and laws – which are in line with international standards and acceptable practices. China is no exception.
In the current global village, where geopolitics has taken centre stage, we have become accustomed to the antics of some Western countries, wishing to dictate how other governments should govern.
The West, led by the United States, has made it a full-time job to attempt to interfere in how China – the world’s fastest-growing and second-largest economy – should be run.
Ironically, it is not China dictating how they should run their affairs.
They have now made it their issue to criticise a new law – Article 23 of the Basic Law of Hong Kong – recently passed by that city’s legislature to enact laws to safeguard national security.
According to Chinese lawmakers, the law – aimed at tightening security and fighting terrorism – is geared to bring about “a stable and prosperous future for Hong Kong”.
Cheung Kwok-kwan, deputy secretary for justice in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) government, said many countries have enacted a host of national security laws, based on their own national security risks and needs.
He said the legislation would enhance his country’s protection against real national security threats in today’s complex global landscape.
Article 23, he said, was in full accordance with international law and practices, calling criticism from certain countries and organisations “ignorant of legal principles and riddled with double standards”.
Cheung said the legislation clearly specified that the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Basic Law remained protected, as well as the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, as applied to Hong Kong.
“This important principle forms a cornerstone of the legislation and is literally written in the new law,” he said.
University of South Africa emeritus professor André Thomashausen sees nothing sinister with Article 23.
According to him, the current anti-terrorism laws in all Western countries are “by far more overreaching and draconian, than the provision made on the basis of Article 23 of the Hong Kong Basic Law”.
“Western anti-terrorism laws suspend all fundamental rights and procedural guarantees and, in practice, there are no safeguards against anybody being charged as a terrorist.
“The national security law to be enacted on the basis of Article 23 of the Hong Kong Basic Law, expands on the existing national security law in key areas: stealing of state secrets, insurrection, sabotage and external interference in Hong Kong.
“It essentially embraces mainland China’s comprehensive national security regime.”
Included in Article 23 is the adoption of the mainland’s broad definition of “state secrets”.
“A fair assessment cannot overlook that Hong Kong has continued its common law judicial tradition, which guarantees the utmost independence to the courts and judges,” said Thomashausen.
After decades of British colonialism, it is about time that Chinese critics accept the fact that Hong Kong is no island, but part of the Peoples’ Republic of China.