I was a panelist at a forum on political reform in 2013, organized by the Alliance for True Democracy. The topic of the forum was: “What is to fear about civic nomination?” At that forum, I explained that political reform needs to adhere to the framework laid out in the Basic Law. Civic nomination of candidates for the chief executive post is not allowed in the Basic Law, which explicitly states they must be first nominated by a Nominating Committee. I tried my best to explain that if we want to lower the “entry threshold for candidates to join the race”, we should do what we can to assure Beijing that the “one country, two systems” principle will not be jeopardized. Unfortunately, people either ignored the Basic Law altogether or interpreted the Basic Law as they pleased.
In 2014, the illegal “Occupy Central” movement broke out. Organizers had said the occupiers would be peaceful and would not resist being rounded up by the police, and these actions would last no more than a few days. They said any damage to the economy would be minimal. The movement in the end lasted 79 days, and sporadic violence occurred. Since then, Hong Kong people’s respect for law and order has been eroded, and their consideration for others has also begun to fade.
“Occupy Central” came to an end in December. Stability gradually returned to Hong Kong after the movement ended. But beneath this veneer of calm, an anti-China campaign was brewing. Mainland tourists were harassed; shopping malls and shops on the streets were visited by people in a “gouwu” campaign. “Gouwu” sounds like “shopping” in Putonghua, but in the context refers to a sporadic protest at shops to disrupt shops and their patrons. Quietly, anti-China propaganda and “education” crept into some schools and even textbooks. Some student leaders openly promoted Hong Kong independence. A pro-independence Hong Kong National Party was established in 2016, and quite a few candidates for Legislative Council and District Council elections advocated “self-determination”.
Last year, in the wake of the SAR government’s tabling the fugitive law amendment bill, severe violence broke out, with gasoline bombs, sling shots, corrosive liquids, arrows and other dangerous weapons being used. The police in some cases even found triacetone triperoxide (TATP) — a highly lethal explosive. The police have warned that protesters have become increasingly like terrorists.
We all hoped that Hong Kong can honor its commitment to national security by legislating according to Article 23 of the Basic Law. But instead of this, pro-independence legislators and student groups have come into the open
In November, the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019 was passed into law in the United States. It “imposes sanctions on those responsible for human rights violations in Hong Kong. The Department of State shall certify annually to Congress as to whether Hong Kong warrants its unique treatment under various treaties, agreements, and US law. The analysis shall evaluate whether Hong Kong is upholding the rule of law and protecting rights enumerated in various documents, including (1) the agreement between the United Kingdom and China regarding Hong Kong’s return to China, and (2) the Universal Declaration of Human Rights”.
To fair-minded observers, the US is not as interested in human rights and democracy as it claims. If it is so keen on human rights and democracy, why did it not sanction Saudi Arabia, which killed journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi embassy in Istanbul? If it is so keen on democracy, why did it want to take down democratically elected leaders in multiple countries, such as in Venezuela recently and in Chile decades ago? We hope China and the US will work together peacefully, but the US is too wary of China’s further rise to allow China to surpass it. The US sees China as a threat, but not because there is any evidence for this; the US sees China as a rival just because its meteoric rise is “frightening”. To America, national security is of continued pre-eminence across all fronts. It has so far presented no evidence that Huawei had ever compromised its national security. It just cannot tolerate Huawei’s rise.
We all hoped that the social and political unrest of last year would subside after the COVID-19 outbreak. But this hope was dashed by guerilla-style protests in various shopping malls and in streets in recent weeks. We had all hoped that Dennis Kwok Wing-hang who chaired the meetings to elect the chairperson of the House Committee of the Legislative Council would perform his duty. But after seven months and 16 meetings, Kwok continued with his filibustering to paralyze LegCo so the National Anthem Bill could not be passed into law. We all hoped that Hong Kong can honor its commitment to national security by legislating according to Article 23 of the Basic Law. But instead of this, pro-independence legislators and student groups have come into the open.
Some commentators say that Beijing’s actions to make a law for Hong Kong circumvent LegCo and deviate from the Basic Law. They do not understand “one country, two systems”, which requires that the Hong Kong SAR respect the central government’s full sovereignty over Hong Kong and the nation’s development interests. Rather than undermining “one country, two systems”, Beijing has been forced by recent developments to restore the “one country, two systems” principle and law and order. If China’s national security and territorial integrity are jeopardized, the Hong Kong SAR’s prosperity will be doomed.
The author is a senior research fellow at Pan Sutong Shanghai-Hong Kong Economic Policy Research Institute at Lingnan University.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
