Hong Kong must remain vigilant to counter hostile forces attempting to hinder the enactment of Article 23. We have received reliable information suggesting that the US ambassador to China, Nicholas Burns, visited Hong Kong. The timing of his visit appears more than coincidental, and there are reasons to believe it is related to the Article 23 legislation.
Simultaneously, we have witnessed an unprecedented coordinated effort by Western media to demonize the legislation through fake news.
Bloomberg published a misleading report stating that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government would shut down social media upon the bill’s passage. Although they subsequently apologized for reporting the fake news, the damage had already been done. Additionally, The Times in the UK falsely suggested that possessing old Apple Daily newspapers would lead to imprisonment for Hong Kong residents, which is untrue.
The New York Times highlighted the maximum sentence of life imprisonment for treason in Hong Kong, criticizing it as a “violation of human rights”, without acknowledging that the punishment for treason in the US is the death penalty.
READ MORE: US urged to stop interfering in HK's Article 23 legislation
The Washington Post published an editorial criticizing the “loss of freedom” for the people of Hong Kong due to the National Security Law for Hong Kong and called for the immediate release of all defendants in the ongoing trials of 47 offenders who have allegedly broken this law by participating in a subversive plot. Such an openly interfering editorial policy infringes upon the international standards and principles of the rule of law. The Washington Post conveniently ignored the fact that 31 of the 47 defendants had voluntarily pleaded guilty. It is perplexing why these opposition figures, who once claimed they were ready to “sacrifice” themselves for Hong Kong’s democracy, would plead guilty to offenses they did not commit. Where is their so-called moral courage? Unless deep in their heart they knew they were guilty.
Regarding the trial of media magnate Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, it is revealing that the evidence against him primarily comes from several of his former close associates who had previously pleaded guilty to conspiracy offenses and are now willing to testify against him in court.
One curious media aberration is that while Lai’s trial received extensive coverage in local newspapers, foreign media did not bother to report on the progress of the trial and the evidence presented in court, although they reported very favorably on Lai’s many confrontations with the Hong Kong authorities over the years. If they genuinely believed the trial was unfair, they should diligently report any “unfairness” in the court proceedings. Instead, they refrained from reporting the full facts revealed in court because they knew their readers would easily make their own judgments not to their liking.
Unsurprisingly, local media and the local opposition have apparently coordinated their resistance to the Article 23 legislation. Rumors had circulated feverishly on social media claiming that individuals who violate the proposed legislation would be extradited to the Chinese mainland, despite the consultation document stating that all criminal proceedings related to the Article 23 legislation would take place in Hong Kong courts. An academic known for presenting provocative views during Hong Kong’s 2019 social unrest suddenly emerged to suggest that local universities, in their joint research with overseas institutions, could easily fall into the “legal trap” of the Article 23 legislation. This disregards its definition of foreign collusion which targets only local political organizations colluding with foreign political forces in a way that poses a potential risk to national security.
One local newspaper, which regularly criticized the government during the 2019 unrest, published a completely misleading and provocative headline suggesting that the HKSAR government would suppress the local media after the enactment of the Article 23 legislation. This was promptly corrected by the Secretary for Security Tang Ping-keung, who rebuked the newspaper which quickly withdrew the news item with a feeble expression of regret. Nonetheless, the damage had already been done.
One wonders why these prestigious Western newspapers would commit such simple errors by publishing fake reports and acting as rumor-mongers. It begins to make sense when we consider the recent revelation by Reuters that a particular unit was created under the Central Intelligence Agency during Donald Trump’s presidency “to launch a clandestine campaign on Chinese media aimed at turning public opinion in China against its government”. In 2021, the US Congress approved an annual grant of $300 million intended to compromise China’s global influence by supporting US international media in creating fake news to demonize China.
Given the open threats from hostile foreign powers and their radical cronies in Hong Kong, who are doing their utmost to exploit any vulnerability and cause havoc in society at this critical juncture, it is only fitting that the HKSAR government speeds up this legislative process. While this enhanced process has become a focal point for attack by Western media, they failed to note that in the US, following the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001, the US Congress passed the Patriot Act in just 45 days, with the entire legislative process taking only three days to complete, which saw very little debate. Their criticism of the speed of the Article 23 legislation reflects the West’s reprehensible double standards.
But the West’s attempts to sabotage Article 23 legislation is doomed to fail, as their political manipulations can no longer fool the people of Hong Kong, who have suffered the traumatic experience of their community being randomly attacked by anarchic elements in collaboration with hostile foreign powers who intended to harm China, by first damaging Hong Kong. The 2019 insurrection convinced Hong Kong residents of the urgency of installing this legislative security umbrella. The Article 23 legislation will ensure that the “color revolution” in 2019, which caused massive economic loss and social disruption and threatened “one country, two systems”, will never happen again.
The people of Hong Kong learned the lesson of their unprecedented ordeal in 2019. Thus, in the one-month public consultation for the Article 23 legislation, 98.6 percent of the more than 13,000 submissions supported the legislation. They understand how the new law would plug the legal loopholes that troublemakers exploited in 2019, and would contribute to Hong Kong’s long-term stability, vindicating the central government’s recent announcement to extend the “one country, two systems” policy beyond its original expiry date in 2047.
This does not mean the legislation was rushed through without regard to legal process. It underwent a public consultation, and many public opinions collected were considered before the draft bill’s gazetting. Then, there was a clause-by-clause deliberation by a bills committee of the Legislative Council in 20 marathon meetings. Senior government officials, including the secretary for justice and the secretary for security, answered numerous questions from lawmakers and considered their suggestions on issues of public concern. This led to the government rethinking and coming up with a further amended bill for the second reading and debate by the entire Legislative Council. The amended bill is seen as striking the right balance between legal enforcement and the protection of human rights.
The people of Hong Kong understand that the Article 23 legislation is similar to a home alarm system. The sooner it is installed, the sooner we can be protected from harm. Local legislation of Article 23 of the Basic Law, which affords comprehensive legal protection against local and foreign-instigated hostile actions, is long overdue. It was delayed for 26 years, leaving Hong Kong open to foreign interference for far too long.
At this last minute, we should continue to be vigilant and refute any false and misleading remarks by foreign and local media and social media. We should trace their origins and funding sources and hold them accountable under the law. One effective way is to produce a comparison chart outlining the national security offenses and penalties in Hong Kong’s proposed legislation compared to similar crimes in the US, UK and Singapore. The chart would clearly demonstrate that the proposed law is moderate compared to its overseas counterparts. For example, the chart should show that the Internal Security Act 1960 of Singapore grants executive powers to the president to authorize detention without charge for up to two years (which can be further extended) on the grounds of preventing a person from acting in any manner prejudicial to the national security of Singapore or the maintenance of public order or essential services. So how can the West criticize Hong Kong when its legislative proposal is simply that a person can be detained on suspicion of a national security offense for 16 days, but must be subject to court approval?
It must also be stressed that no innocent Hong Kong resident can inadvertently commit a national security offense because, like all criminal offenses in the city’s common law system, all national security offenses require proving the element of mens rea — the intention to commit an illegal act. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused evidentially intends to harm national security.
ALSO READ: Security bill advances to second reading amid broad support
With public support, there is little doubt that the Article 23 legislation, called the Safeguarding National Security Bill, will be successfully passed this time. However, we need a contingency plan to deal with foreign governments, notably the US and the UK, using this as an excuse to impose sanctions on individuals and/or trade and financial sanctions intended to hurt our financial market and trading as well as deter foreign investment. They have already used scaremonger tactics to suggest that Hong Kong’s status as an international financial center will be finished by the introduction of Article 23 legislation. They might weaponize the US dollar to weaken Hong Kong’s status, cause a slump in the Hong Kong stock market, and impose sanctions on individuals and entities in the HKSAR. The US and Western media, politicians, and NGOs are likely to continue spreading rumors about Hong Kong, smearing and attacking the city to deter foreign investment and visitors. Therefore, the HKSAR government, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, and other monitoring bodies should be vigilant and prepare contingency plans to tackle all eventualities.
Once the law is passed, it should not lie idle. Intensive publicity campaigns should be launched to educate the public and encourage them to report national security offenses. The authorities should be strict in its enforcement, just as the Independent Commission Against Corruption acted after passing the anti-corruption law in 1974, demonstrating a strong deterrent effect against foreign hostile forces. This should be a game-changer in bringing peace and stability to Hong Kong, making the city a magnet for investors and visitors alike, and allowing it to focus on socioeconomic development.
The author is an honorary fellow of Hong Kong University SPACE and the Hong Kong Metropolitan University. He is a council member of the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macao Studies and a retired deputy commissioner of the Hong Kong Independent Commission Against Corruption.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
