EDITORIAL: Hong Kong’s security ordinance will strangle city’s society, economy

Release time：2024-05-22 09:59:47 Source：International Infusion news portal

Under the guise of “national security,” Hong Kong’s legislature recently passed a draconian security ordinance. The legislation represents a dangerous enhancement of control that could seal off not just citizens’ rights but the once-vibrant city’s free economic activities as well.

The “Safeguarding National Security Ordinance” was cast as a measure to complement the Hong Kong national security law enacted in 2020 that establishes security-related crimes such as secession.

The new ordinance lists a range of national security violations, including insurrection, incitement to mutiny and acts with seditious intention, and defines them as crimes punishable with penalties of up to life imprisonment.

Its aim is clearly for a more comprehensive and powerful crackdown on antigovernment activities. It includes a provision that allows police to stop a suspect from consulting a lawyer when it is deemed necessary to protect national security. This, of course, raises serious human rights concerns.

What is particularly disturbing is the inclusion of provisions for espionage, theft of state secrets and “external interference.” Definitions of “secrets” and “interference” remain vague, posing a risk that foreign companies and foreign nationals may be directly targeted for prosecution. No wonder countries like the United States and Japan have expressed grave concerns.

In introducing the ordinance, Hong Kong Chief Executive John Lee emphasized the need to strengthen security legislation in response to “foreign agents and advocates of Hong Kong independence.”

Justifying authoritarianism by citing threats from “outside” follows exactly the same method as the Chinese Communist Party’s usual tactics.

This will likely tarnish Hong Kong’s long-held reputation as the gateway to the Chinese market and an international financial center, diminishing its international stature.

The ordinance was unanimously passed by the Legislative Council on March 19, just about a dozen days after it was introduced on March 8. It is reported that Chinese President Xi Jinping’s administration rushed the Hong Kong government to enact it quickly.

Hong Kong is supposed to have a separate legal system from mainland China. If Xi’s policy of prioritizing national security over economic development has eroded the integrity of the legal system of the semi-autonomous Chinese city, the new ordinance is tantamount to additional damage to Hong Kong’s uniqueness.

The political motives behind the ordinance’s enactment cannot be overlooked.

Originally, Article 23 of the Hong Kong Basic Law called for legislation prohibiting acts that threaten national security. However, when the Hong Kong government proposed such legislation to the Legislative Council in 2003, massive protests erupted, eventually growing to an outpouring of dissent involving half a million citizens and forcing the Hong Kong authority to withdraw the measure.

By passing the ordinance through the Legislative Council this time, the authorities likely aimed to maintain the appearance of legislation based on “a high degree of autonomy,” as stipulated in the Basic Law.

But what must not be forgotten is that this does not mean public opinion has shifted from opposition to support.

The unanimous passage of the ordinance only reflects the harsh crackdown on the pro-democracy movement and antigovernment activities since the enactment of the national security law four years ago. Under the law, citizens were detained merely for voicing protests, critical media were crushed, and the democratic faction was ousted from the Legislative Council through electoral system changes, leaving it uniformly “pro-Beijing.”

Article 27 of the Hong Kong Basic Law explicitly guarantees Hong Kong residents the freedoms of speech, association, and assembly. Has the Hong Kong government forgotten this crucial article?

If it cannot protect citizens’ rights, Hong Kong’s system can no longer be described as autonomous.

--The Asahi Shimbun, March 22

Related articles