Editor’s note: The following is the 13th article of a series focusing on the “one country, two systems” principle.
It has been more than 20 years since Hong Kong returned to the motherland, but the special administrative region has yet to fulfill its constitutional obligation of enacting national security legislation according to Article 23 of the Basic Law. Because of this delay, Hong Kong remains a national security liability today.
The central government put Hong Kong in a special position by blessing it with the “one country, two systems” principle because it is conducive to achieving and upholding national unification. No sovereign state on earth is so foolish as to risk national security for the pleasure of some opposition parties. Safeguarding the nation’s sovereignty, security and development interests, together with ensuring the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong in the long run, is the original purpose and philosophy of “one country, two systems”. Without question, safeguarding the country’s sovereignty, national security and development interests comes before Hong Kong’s prosperity and stability because the latter cannot exist without the former.
Article 23 of the Basic Law stipulates that the HKSAR shall enact laws on its own to prohibit seven types of activities harmful to national security. It is more an instruction than an authorization for Hong Kong to enact a local-version national security law. The National Security Law promulgated in 2015 clearly requires the Hong Kong SAR and Macao SAR to fulfill their responsibilities in safeguarding national security. The existence of “two systems” does not spare the SAR from its obligation to safeguard national security because it is a constitutional obligation. And there is no point talking about “two systems” when “one country” is in danger.
There are people calling for completing national security legislation according to Article 23 of the Basic Law before implementing “dual universal suffrage” in Hong Kong. That is no doubt a good idea since “dual universal suffrage” could pose a political threat in the absence of a law safeguarding national security from Hong Kong’s end. However, the central government has not tied the two together, and the National People’s Congress Standing Committee has already announced a timetable for implementing “dual universal suffrage” in Hong Kong. This is yet another example of the central government’s confidence in the people of Hong Kong. The truth is that national security legislation according to Article 23 of the Basic Law must be fulfilled with or without “dual universal suffrage”. The HKSAR cannot choose not to honor this constitutional obligation.
It has been 17 years since the SAR government’s first attempt to enact a national security law according to Article 23 failed in 2003. As a result, Hong Kong independence advocacy has risen in recent years; while a host of political groups and figures have been busy conspiring with hostile forces overseas to gravely threaten national security as well as jeopardizing Hong Kong’s interests, making national security legislation according to Article 23 all the more urgent. The 19th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China adopted a decision at its fourth plenary session on Oct 31 requiring the enactment and improvement of national security laws and related enforcement mechanisms in the two SARs. It is yet another step in emphasizing the central government authorities’ resolve in and commitment to safeguarding the country’s sovereignty, national security and development interests. There is nothing more worrying than vulnerabilities in national security, which is why national security legislation according to Article 23 cannot wait indefinitely. Some experts in constitutional affairs have pointed out that if Hong Kong cannot fulfill its constitutional obligation in safeguarding national security, the central government will plug the loophole one way or another because it has the right and means to do so.
Hong Kong’s existing laws also contain provisions related to national security. In 2018, the SAR government banned the separatist Hong Kong National Party in accordance with the Societies Ordinance. However, these existing laws are not enough to replace a national security law tailor-made to meet the requirements of Article 23 of the Basic Law.
When some people suggested back in the day that China may not need to maintain a military presence in Hong Kong, late Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping responded rather angrily and emphasized that a military presence is a symbol of sovereignty and a means to preventing “things that will harm the country’s fundamental interests” from happening. Deng’s wisdom and foresight were undeniable in terms of “expecting the worst”. He decided that, if Hong Kong were to become a subversive base against the mainland in the name of “democracy”, it would be impossible for Beijing not to intervene. When necessary, the SAR government should be the first to act in the name of national security, and the People’s Liberation Army Hong Kong Garrison may also lend a hand in stopping violent unrest. Some people are worried that dispatching PLA troops would signify the end of “one country, two systems”. Such concern is unnecessary because quelling social unrest is the responsibility of the armed forces around the world just as national defense is. The PLA Garrison in Hong Kong is tasked with such missions as well as national defense and will return to its barracks as soon as peace and order is restored. Then the exercise of “one country, two systems” will be back on track.
Hair dies without skin. Hong Kong’s security is part and parcel of China’s national security and cannot be separated from the latter. Safeguarding national security is the only way to ensure Hong Kong’s security.
The author is a veteran current affairs commentator.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
