National security was never one of the fields where Hong Kong has a high degree of autonomy as it’s a state-level issue, legal experts told the Basic Law 30th Anniversary Legal Summit held on Tuesday.
During an online panel discussion about the responsibility of maintaining national security under “one country, two systems”, Wang Zhenmin, professor of law and dean at the Tsinghua University School of Law, said that safeguarding national security is every country’s cardinal task.
In every country, these national security laws are always enacted at state level and it is the right and responsibility of the national government. Hence, implementing the National Security Law in Hong Kong does not undermine the city’s high degree of autonomy
Wang Zhenmin,
professor of law and dean at the Tsinghua University School of Law
He said the United Kingdom and the United States, which are among the most vocal critics of the National Security Law for Hong Kong, have themselves enacted the most laws concerning national security. The two countries have pieces of legislation with national security clauses scattered across different laws.
“In every country, these national security laws are always enacted at state level and it is the right and responsibility of the national government,” said Wang. “Hence, implementing the National Security Law in Hong Kong does not undermine the city’s high degree of autonomy.”
ALSO READ: Hong Kong Police Force launches national security hotline
Zhang Yong, vice-chairperson of the Basic Law Committee under the National People’s Congress Standing Committee, agreed. He stressed that while the central government has the fundamental responsibility to safeguard national security, Hong Kong, as a component of the national security system, has an unshakable “constitutional responsibility” to undertake.
In maintaining national security in Hong Kong, Zhang said there are three key bottom lines that cannot be crossed - endangering national sovereignty; challenging the central government’s authority and the Basic Law; and jeopardizing the nation through making trouble in the special administrative region.
He said these have always been the central government’s standpoints, “but only some particular political figures in Hong Kong have turned a deaf ear to it and drifted apart”.
Hong Kong returning officers had earlier barred four opposition legislators from running in the Legislative Council elections originally scheduled for Sept 6 for soliciting foreign sanctions against the SAR and intervention in the city’s affairs. They were stripped of their legislative seats by the SAR government after the NPCSC passed a resolution on Nov 11 stipulating that Hong Kong lawmakers must be removed or banned from standing in the LegCo elections if they advocate separatism, breach their oath of allegiance to the HKSAR government, seek foreign intervention in Hong Kong’s affairs or commit acts that endanger national security.
READ MORE: HK's national security duty emphasized
Han Dayuan, professor of constitutional law and dean of Renmin University of China Law School, said the NPCSC’s decision is to protect the nation’s sovereignty and dignity.
In his view, the relationship between “one country” and “two systems” is that without a unified country and intact national territory, there’s no room for “two systems”.
Han said some Hong Kong people have a misunderstanding of the “one country, two systems” principle. “Some legislators not only deny China’s sovereignty over the HKSAR, they even advocate Hong Kong independence,” he said.
READ MORE: CE stresses right understanding of 'one country, two systems’
Opposition parties, he said, can scrutinize the government or criticize officials, but they’ve to respect the country’s sovereignty and constitutional order. “These are the core duties of every national and basic ethics of every public officer.”
