weekly
Writer: Contributing Writer
2020-06-15 17:45
Date of last update: 2020-06-15 17:45In 2003, Hong Kong people had the opportunity to enact legislation on Article 23 of the Basic Law on their own (not through Annex 3 of the Basic Law). The "National Security (Legislative Provisions) Bill" (hereinafter referred to as the "Draft"), which was proposed for 23 pieces of legislation that year, has three points that are particularly prominent. It shows that the Central Government and Dong Jianhua's government at that time compared with the tough style nowadays, and adopted a more gentle Policy: First, at that time the government added public interest defense reasons, canceled the police’s right to search the house, etc., and made concessions at the implementation level; second, the government clarified and emphasized many times (including in the Legislative Council report) that someone was convicted of treason Serious crimes such as subversion, subversion, etc., must be "without reasonable doubt", not even including "slogans, sending emails, stopping traffic in Hong Kong, kidnapping, or even threatening to kill or mutilate someone"; third, the relevant legislation at the operational level Political speeches that are generally regarded as not applicable to ordinary citizens generally focus on preventing Hong Kong political groups from contacting foreign organizations.
Author: Shi Zhongjian
Of course, to have a society full of pursuit of Western values such as freedom and political rights, it is naturally very difficult to adopt a law that seems to be "evil" without any preparation, especially 23 The legislation restricting freedom of speech and the right to choose political representatives violates the nerves of many Hong Kong people. When the government explained the 23 pieces of legislation, it did not explain the above doubts in a language or argument acceptable to the public. Many members of the general public promoted a very successful "anti-article 23 legislation" out of distrust of the central government. "Motion", and ultimately the Liberal Party's rebellion as the finale, so that the "Draft" was stillborn.
In the eyes of some Hong Kong people, the Central People's Republic of China quickly implemented strict national security laws six years after its return, making them feel at a loss for the motherland; but from the perspective of the principle of sovereignty and constitutional relations that the Central Government attaches importance to, Hong Kong people often speak With "Accepting Central Government Governance" hanging, even the most basic "statement of nomination" has never been passed. Why should the Central Government be required to allow Hong Kong to implement "double universal suffrage"? Since then, the failure of communication between the two and differences in values have gradually become the main theme of Hong Kong politics. The failure to implement the 23 pieces of legislation became a thorn in the heart of the central government, and indirectly led to the stagnation of Hong Kong people and the central government's reform proposals. It was not until the representatives of the Democratic Party entered the Central Liaison Office in 2010 that they officially broke the ice. .
At that time, 23 legislations were filled with political prejudice as soon as they started. The picture shows the public sitting around the Legislative Council sitting quietly. (Profile picture/Getty Images)
The Central Government may have thought that the Huairou policy could change the minds of Hong Kong people and promote the return of the hearts of the people of Hong Kong, but last year’s anti-amendment incident pushed the contradiction between the land and port to a level that could jeopardize the stability and security of the country. The inaction of the formed faction over the past two decades will inevitably make the central government speak a little. In the eyes of the central government, maintaining national security was originally a matter of course, and hopes were given to the Hong Kong government and the establishment faction. However, they feared that the "gun shot the bird" or would be sniped in the elections. It dragged on, to the point where the central government regards national security as an urgent issue for Hong Kong.
Anyone who understands the thinking of the central government a little bit (including Panmin MPs) will know that as a country that is governed by centralized consultations, the central government has no practical interest to refuse to enact legislation for its own national security. Therefore, Article 23 legislation is not only the constitutional responsibility of Hong Kong, but also the political reality that Hong Kong people must face and accept after returning to China.
We can calculate the reason for the central government's action-in fact, it is very simple. They need to punish the extreme political proposition of "leading the soldiers into the customs" under the existing legal system. They also need a way to separate the "brute force" who advocates violent resistance from reasonable law. A peaceful demonstration of "harmony." Judging from the decision points of the "Hong Kong version of the National Security Law", the central government and policy designers hope that this plan can effectively prohibit the inflow of foreign capital to support extreme forces such as Hong Kong independence, plug the loopholes in existing laws on incitement, and ensure that Hong Kong will implement any reforms in the future Any change or change can be premised on having basic respect for national security.
On May 28, 2020, the National People's Congress of China passed the "Hong Kong version of the National Security Law" by 2,878 votes in favor, 1 against and 6 abstentions. (Profile picture/Associated Press)
The National Security Law is not a beast of floods, but doubts and worries must be answered
Two weeks ago, the National People's Congress voted to authorize the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress to formulate the "Hong Kong version of the National Security Law." Of course, such a "heavy blow" will inevitably make it difficult for many people in Hong Kong to accept it at one moment or three. Therefore, it is necessary for all parties to discuss and revise this ordinance in an all-round way to ensure that the interests of both the central government and Hong Kong are protected.
Many people in the workshop worried that the "Hong Kong version of the National Security Law" might damage their freedom of speech and expression, for example, that they would be restricted by demonstrations such as the "June 4th" rally, or that they would worry about their past or future politics and criticize the central government. 'S remarks may be prosecuted, banned, and even worried that Hong Kong will become like the mainland, becoming a "politically correct" civil society that overrides everything.
Many public voices also said that all sovereign countries in the world have their own national security laws. If you plan violent resistance in the United States, the President of the United States has the power to use force against you, and you can also accuse you of violating the national security (of course there are different convictions and charges, which vary according to circumstances). Many members of the establishment faction also publicly stated after the National People's Congress passed the "Hong Kong version of the National Security Law": with security, we can talk about freedom; with stability, we can help social development. Individuals are more positive, saying that anyone who opposes the "Hong Kong version of the National Security Law" must actually refer to the supervision or punishment actions mentioned in the published document of the National Security Law in order to realize that the "Hong Kong version of the National Security Law" is compared to the Mainland. The National Security Act is more able to detain the people of Hong Kong and reflects the general public's observance and respect for criticizing the government's freedom of speech.
The chief executive appeared in support of the National Security Law booth. (Profile picture)
However, these official statements may not be able to play a clarifying role. Some people worry that the "Hong Kong version of the National Security Law" will cause Hong Kong to "crime", while others think that under the "Hong Kong version of the National Security Law", participation in peaceful assemblies will also be prosecuted. These widespread and widespread concerns may be due to the fact that many people in Hong Kong have little understanding of the central government’s current policy on governance of Hong Kong, but to a certain extent, this is also due to the fact that the establishment system and the media generally have insufficient explanations of the laws, which leads to the confusion about the Chinese legal system. The prejudice of fearful people is getting deeper.
Others say that the Central People's Government made this move to suppress Hong Kong's freedom of speech, undermine Hong Kong's rule of law, and promote Hong Kong's "inlandization." But from a practical perspective, what kind of governance should the central government establish in Hong Kong? What is the interest of the Central People's Government to silence all Hong Kong people who criticize local governance and government? Grasping the big and letting the small have always been the pragmatic principles of the CCP since the founding of the People's Republic of China. In other words, the central government has focused on the principle of "big" rather than targeting the "small" citizens everywhere. For the central government, "one country" is definitely a big principle. If it is not forced to help, it will not suddenly apply part (but not all) of the set of operations in the mainland to Hong Kong.
However, the central government must understand that there is a need to respond positively to the worries of the people of Hong Kong, and they cannot rely on the existing official accusations of the establishment system to answer indiscriminately. In fact, most people in Hong Kong are not afraid of committing a crime against God, but they do not feel that their rights can be protected. If the central officials can make detailed explanations taking into account these concerns of the Hong Kong people, it may be able to reassure the moderate people of the "He Lifei" to accept the voice of the establishment system instead of trying to overthrow the system and being categorized as an accomplice to destabilizing Hong Kong's prosperity and stability. . If the central government can listen to the voices of Hong Kong people and adopt public opinions on the implementation and definition of the relevant regulations, it is believed that the negative perception of the "Hong Kong version of the National Security Law" on Hong Kong society will gradually subside in the future.
In fact, most people in Hong Kong are not afraid of committing a crime against God, but they do not feel that their rights can be protected. (Profile picture)
The National Security Law is not the end of the rule of law but the premise of rebuilding the rule of law
Demonstrators and critics of the government and state have not undermined the rule of law. Any society ruled by law should accommodate these voices of opposition and criticism. However, in the storm of anti-revision laws, a small number of people did use extreme violence, which caused panic and chaos in the market. The police's tough law enforcement has become a "catalyst" for violent incidents, which has led to the "unreasonable" people unwilling to "separate their seats" from the violence.
The police are the victims, and the general Hong Kong people are also the victims. They harm the rule of law in Hong Kong. They are the lack of responsible governance elites. They are people who advocate violent resistance but do not seem to reflect on the consequences. They are those who continue to encourage young people to embark on a momentary spirit. Street politicians and KOL.
At the beginning of January last year, the central government informed the representatives of the "two sessions" that they needed to participate in the "Provincial and Ministry-level Leading Cadres' Symposium on Sticking to the Bottom Line Thinking and Preventing and Solving Major Risks", which advocated that local cadres should use "bottom line thinking" to resist external stimulation . From the perspective of ordinary citizens, the "Hong Kong version of the National Security Law" helps citizens who demonstrate peacefully and rationally and those who violently destroy Hong Kong to make a sensible cut. In theory, ordinary citizens will never violate the behaviors targeted by the regulations.
The police are the victims, as are the people of Hong Kong. (Profile picture)
Many citizens worry that the Central Government will exert pressure on the judicial system of Hong Kong, causing the judicial system to sue the public and exploit its most basic civil rights. But from a practical point of view again: If the central government really wants to "criminalize with words", why do the laborers need to use the "Hong Kong version of the National Security Law" to do this? The existing laws of Hong Kong are sufficient to "criminalize with words," but Hong Kong's freedom of expression is still more relaxed than many other regions. On the contrary, when the market situation calms down after the adoption of the "Hong Kong version of the National Security Law", the vast majority of those who support the demonstration slowly resume rational dialogue. At that time, Hong Kong will inevitably be able to rebuild citizens' confidence in the rule of law, so that the rule of law can be put back on track.
It is time for the Pan-President to part with violence and bring Hong Kong people's doubts about the "Hong Kong version of the National Security Law" to the central government in a constructive tone and attitude. As an official representative of voters who are dissatisfied with the government, democratic parliamentarians should have acted as a bridge between the opposition citizens and the central government, rather than acting arbitrarily in order to gain a sense of perception and "out of place." At the same time, the establishment faction must also "speak directly." It is not possible to accurately report Hong Kong people's sentiments for the sake of fooling or pleasing the central government.
The passage of the "Hong Kong version of the National Security Law" is already an inevitable reality. Both the pan-popular and the established politicians should submit constructive suggestions to the Central Government under reasonable circumstances. This is the pragmatic nature of being a politician style.
About the Author:
Shi Zhongjian
A group of post-90s who have hope for the future of Hong Kong
I believe that Hong Kong must fundamentally improve governance
In the global politics and the rise of China
Other articles by Hong Kong 01 Contributing Author Shi Zhongjian:
Exploring the rights of foreign domestic helpers under the New Coronary Pneumonia: Encouraging home stay = exploitation in disguise?
Reformed Youth on Hong Kong Version National Security Law
The above excerpt is from the 218th "Hong Kong 01" Weekly Report (June 15, 2020) "Myths about the Impact of National Security Law on Hong Kong's Political Situation".
More weekly articles:【01 Weekly News Page】
[01 Initiative] Listen to the pains of the four generations to resolve deep-seated structural contradictions
"Hong Kong 01" Weekly, available at major newsstands, OK convenience stores and Vango convenience stores. You can also subscribe to the weekly report here, or click here to preview the weekly e-newsletter to read more in-depth reports.
Hong Kong version of the Basic Law of National Security Law 23 Article 01 Weekly Basic Law of One Country, Two Systems