On Tuesday evening the Hong Kong Legislative Council passed legislation pertaining to Article 23 of the Basic Law, expanding upon the city’s National Security Law (NSL) and affirming new offenses pertaining to treason, insurrection, theft of State secrets and safeguarding against external interference in the city’s affairs. Although the passage of legislation related to Article 23 has been mandatory as part of the Basic Law since the handover in 1997, and is therefore not contrary to the city’s high degree of autonomy, it had met local resistance. 

Naturally, the passage of the law was met with the predictable chorus of condemnation from the Western mainstream media, governments and, of course, the usual anti-China figures of the West, including the city’s former unelected governor, Chris Patten. They inevitably claim that the law undermines freedom, democracy and the rule of law in Hong Kong and falsely claim that it is contrary to the Sino-British Joint Declaration. This is in spite of the fact that all of the Five Eyes countries have their own strident national security-focused legislation and respective laws against espionage, treason and subversion.
 

First, the claim that national security matters are contrary to the designated autonomy of the Hong Kong Special Administration Region and the Sino-British Joint Declaration is false, as well as being in denial of the city’s actual status. Since 1997, Hong Kong has been a special administrative region of the People’s Republic of China, when Beijing resumed the exercise of sovereignty over the former. Although the city has designated autonomy in the field of “low politics” which includes its administrative, economic, legislative and social systems, which is described in the Basic Law as a “high degree of autonomy”, this does not apply to what we describe as “high politics” which includes, as per Article 14 of the Basic Law, matters pertaining to defence, foreign policy and thus by logical extension, national security, which must be implemented by the HKSAR authority as per Article 23.

The narrative that Hong Kong was a free and democratic society only for Beijing to take it away is a falsified distortion of history which fundamentally seeks to deny its sovereign rights over the city. In reality, Hong Kong’s success has always been built upon the rule of law backed by political certainty and stability, and it is those who have attempted to weaponize the city against the country who have ultimately undermined that, not Beijing
 

In recognizing this, the imposition of national security laws in the Hong Kong SAR is completely constitutional, in accordance with the Basic Law and is thus not contrary to its designated autonomy. However, Western sources deliberately and opportunistically misinterpret the notion of “autonomy” to argue that this means total distinction from China altogether to the point of the territory having no right to national security, and moreover that Beijing has no right to coordinate with the HKSAR authorities in asserting its “high politics” sovereign interests in the territory. The key point is that Hong Kong is autonomous, but it is not sovereign and never has been; the Basic Law states that the HKSAR authority comes “directly under the Central People’s Government” and similarly the law itself is ultimately and constitutionally subject to the National People’s Congress.

Despite this, the Western idea of Hong Kong is that it is to be China in name only and to effectively exist as a playground, or worse, a Trojan Horse for their own ideological and political visions which they seek to export into China. Because of this there is a persistent denial that the territory has any right to national security legislation whatsoever and that it must be accepting of Western backed political interference, subversion and insurrection, and that any attempt to resist this constitutes a violation of the city’s “autonomy”, rule of law and is “bad for business”. This is nonsensical. First of all, why are strict national security laws bad for Hong Kong as a financial center but not for, let’s say, Singapore? Similarly, any activity deemed “anti-state” in South Korea is also punishable by jail.

Second, to what extent would the same level of violence, disorder and foreign-backed rioting be accepted in any Western country? There is an inherent denial that the status quo in Hong Kong suffered an upheaval due to a series of riots that actively sought to undermine the government itself, and which were openly backed by US politicians and legislation. The British government just as one example has taken increasingly harsh legislative steps against all manner of protests recently, including jailing scores of climate protesters for vandalism, attempts to blockade infrastructure and other disruptive behavior, which amounted to far less severe offenses than those in Hong Kong. No Five Eyes government in any respect has tolerance for “foreign interference” from those it deems to be enemies, and those who are found guilty also face imprisonment.

So why does necessary national security legislation amount to “oppression” and a “diminishing of freedom” in Hong Kong? The city under British rule, it might be added, was never free. Past insurrections and riots in the British-era Hong Kong were met with military force, and similarly figures such as Chris Patten were not elected, but appointed from London. The narrative that Hong Kong was a free and democratic society only for Beijing to take it away is a falsified distortion of history which fundamentally seeks to deny its sovereign rights over the city. In reality, Hong Kong’s success has always been built upon the rule of law backed by political certainty and stability, and it is those who have attempted to weaponize the city against the country who have ultimately undermined that, not Beijing.

The author is a British political and international relations analyst.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.