International reaction to the successful passage of the Article 23 legislation on national security was predictable. The people responsible for the social upheavals and insurrections in Hong Kong from 2014 to 2020 are the very same people voicing outrage at Hong Kong legislating to protect itself from subversion, secession and terrorism.

Their reaction has revealed their true colors; they do not want to see a prosperous Hong Kong and will do anything to curb its development. Envy, jealousy and political agenda have led politicians, governments and activists in exile to condemn the passing of the Article 23 legislation — the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, a legal requirement in Hong Kong’s Basic Law.
 

But for those living in Hong Kong, the businesses and the chambers of commerce, Hong Kong is now one of the safest places on the planet. After six years of uncertainty caused by instigators and doomsayers, Hong Kong can now move forward and provide a secure environment for businesses, financiers and industrialists seeking to tap the resources and opportunities of the vast Chinese mainland market.

Hong Kong’s chief executive, John Lee Ka-chiu, heralded the passage of the law, which, he said, was “needed to guard against people who invade our home”. Because of its passing, he claimed, Hong Kong “no longer needs to worry about people destroying public infrastructure”.

“We need to have such tools which are effective in guarding against black violence and color revolution,” he added.

Immediately after the bill was passed, all media — print, broadcast and social — was awash with reactions by those who were most affected by the new laws — criminals, disgraced activists, and anti-China politicians. They claimed that the Article 23 legislation eroded Hong Kong’s autonomy and freedoms. But actually, it is an erosion of their access to Hong Kong.

The six years of civil unrest in Hong Kong, which included riots, arson, wanton destruction and violence against innocent people, took a heavy toll worth millions of dollars and caused instability. The Hong Kong Police Force maintained law and order with no assistance from the People’s Liberation Army. However, the unrest and riots prompted China’s central authorities in Beijing to remind Hong Kong to enact national security laws as mandated by Article 23 of the Basic Law. The exercise was completed on March 19.

UK Foreign Secretary David Cameron, who sits in the House of Lords with Lord Chris Patten and Lord David Alton — both anti-China advocates — called the new legislation an erosion of Hong Kong’s freedoms.

TV networks in the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia all interviewed “dissidents” decrying the new national security law from their new safe havens; these people had fled arrest and prosecution after violating existing criminal laws in Hong Kong. Other networks in Europe, especially Deutsche Welle in Germany, followed the line of the European Union that the new law has the potential to affect EU offices and member consulates significantly, and could impact EU citizens, organizations and companies in Hong Kong. It also raised questions about Hong Kong’s long-term attractiveness as an international business hub.

What rubbish! The EU statement came on the eve of Hong Kong signing up a new batch of 19 strategic enterprises, including six US firms and 14 Chinese mainland companies. These key enterprises, along with the first batch of approximately 30 strategic enterprises announced in October, will invest over HK$40 billion ($5.1 billion) and create 13,000 jobs in the city. Financial Secretary Paul Chan Mo-po said at the signing ceremony that the Office for Attracting Strategic Enterprises aims to reach out to at least 300 strategic firms this year.

A US State Department spokesperson said the law could accelerate the closing of a once-open society, and suggested that it might pose potential risks to US citizens and American interests.

The spokesman said the legislation was fast-tracked through the “nondemocratically elected Legislative Council after a truncated public comment period. We also believe that a lot of the phrasing and crimes that are outlined are poorly defined and incredibly vague. They use phrases such as ‘external interference’, which is incredibly vague.” 

But one month is plenty of time for consultation, with a vast majority of feedback from the people of Hong Kong in favor of the legislative proposals.  As for the “nondemocratically elected” legislature, there are 90 members of the Legislative Council: 20 members are elected by geographical constituents (one man, one vote), 30 by functional constituents (professional experts voted in by their peers), and 40 from the Election Committee (which vote in the chief executive). And “external interference” is not vaguely defined but is very clear. For example, the US State Department’s National Endowment for Democracy could be considered external interference when it funded anti-government activities in Hong Kong.

The author is a former chief information officer for the Hong Kong government, a PR and media consultant, and a veteran journalist. 

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily