Hong Kong’s Zero-Opposition Legislature Aims To Up Oppression With New ‘National Security’ Law

Free Speech

from the heckler's-veto,-but-with-life-imprisonment dept

A gentleman’s agreement with the UK following years of colonialism has given rise to another form of oppression. China took over Hong Kong in 1997, promising to stay out of the day-to-day business of governing Hong Kong for 50 years. Not even halfway through this promised period of relative autonomy, the Chinese government began imposing its will.

Hong Kong residents were understandably unhappy with this development. Protests followed. Every wave of protest was followed swiftly by even more impositions by the Chinese government. In the last couple of years, it’s become apparent the Chinese government is no longer willing to tolerate any form of dissent in Hong Kong, despite its earlier agreement to take a hands-off position on governing Hong Kong until the middle of this century.

Now, it’s just China, but even richer. The Democratic government has been gutted. Nearly every position of power has been staffed by someone fully supported by (and fully supportive of) the Chinese government. It’s an actual police state now, thanks to the appointment of former Secretary of Security John Lee to the position of Chief Executive. Lee was best known for heading up the crackdown on pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong. Taking his place as second-in-command is Hong Kong’s police commissioner, who was similarly involved in the crackdowns.

Since then, pretty much the entire legislature has been purged of pro-democracy lawmakers. The democratic election system has been replaced with a voting system that only allows “patriots” to vote.

And to better serve the ongoing issue of ridding the country of dissent, a series of steadily escalating “national security” laws have been enacted for the sole purpose of handing out life sentences to critics, protesters, dissidents, and opposition political leaders.

But China’s government is never satisfied. Why settle for outrageously harsh sentences when those sentences can always be harsher? As Derren Chan reports for Jurist, another national security law is making its way through the legislature, where it is expected to face little debate or opposition.

The Hong Kong government released the new national security bill on Friday and sent it to the Legislative Council (LegCo) for deliberation.

The bill consists of nine parts, including criminalizing several national security offenses not covered in the 2020 National Security Law but listed in Article 23 of the Hong Kong Basic Law. The bill criminalizes new offenses, including treason, insurrection and incitement of Chinese armed force members to mutiny that could result in life imprisonment upon conviction. The bill also allows the court to impose harsher bail conditions on suspects. 

I realize “sent it for deliberation” is just a turn of phrase commonly used when discussing pending legislation, but in this case, it’s meaningless. There’s no deliberation awaiting this bill, other than possibly how it could be expanded to punish more dissent and deter future opposition from citizens. This was the state of affairs in the Hong Kong legislature at the end of 2021:

The Hong Kong government has purged the last remaining opposition voice from the city’s legislature amid a deepening crackdown on dissent.

“We have come to the determination that Cheng Chung-tai hasn’t fulfilled the legal requirement of upholding the Basic Law and bearing allegiance to the Hong Kong SAR,” Chief Secretary John Lee said on Thursday, referring to the constitution of the Chinese special administrative region.

A committee led by Lee has been reviewing applicants for the Election Committee, which itself will screen legislative candidates as well as choose 40 of its members for the city’s expanded 90-seat legislature.

What’s even sadder about this additional, equally transparent power grab is that the pro-China legislators and city leaders in Hong Kong still feel they’re obliged to defend the bill as though it’s legitimate or would somehow face serious opposition if they didn’t say things about “common law” or “protecting” Hong Kong. And yet, they’re out there saying things that don’t matter to defend a bill that will become law because China wants it to become law and there’s no one left in Hong Kong with the power to oppose it.

The Secretary for Justice Paul Lam highlighted that the bill is a piece of local legislation written in common law traditions, which requires reasonable and practical clarity. Lam contended rights and freedoms are not absolute under international treaties, and necessary restrictions are justifiable because of national security.

I assume the yes-man work being done here is just for show, allowing Chinese leaders to easily see who’s advocating for must-pass will-pass legislation. I’m guessing Lam’s angling for whatever the Chinese equivalent of a dacha on the lake is.

And, once again, Hong Kong residents unhappy about being oppressed are cited as the justification for additional oppression.

Security chief Chris Tang told lawmakers there was a “genuine and urgent need” for the new law.

“Hong Kong had faced serious threats to national security, especially the color revolution and black-clad violence in 2019, which was an unbearably painful experience,” he said, referring to the democracy protests.

If there’s anything that might prompt some deliberation over this bill, it won’t be the residents of Hong Kong or their complete lack of legislative representation. It will be the rest of the world. And I don’t mean the part of the world willing to engage in their own demonstrations in support of democracy in Hong Kong.

No, it will be the money that does the most talking. Foreign investors and companies may choose to spend elsewhere, rather than continue to show their proxy support for China’s oppression of Hong Kong.

As with its predecessor, the proposed new security law states that offenses committed outside Hong Kong fall under its jurisdiction.

And in a section closely watched by Hong Kong’s foreign business community, the draft provides a multipronged definition of “state secrets” that covers not only technology but “major policy decisions” and the city’s “economic and social development.”

It also criminalizes the unlawful acquisition, possession and disclosure of state secrets, though it offers a “public interest” defense under specific conditions.

Authorities said the public submissions received during the consultative process revealed support from a majority. 

But concerns have been raised by NGO workers, foreign businesses and diplomats, with critics saying the existing security law has already eviscerated Hong Kong’s political opposition and civil society. 

Foreign businesses may have the most power here. But it’s foolhardy to expect a unified front demanding a rollback of China’s stranglehold on Hong Kong. China is synonymous with commerce and has been for decades. And so it’s inevitable the Chinese government’s pattern and practice of disappearing dissent will continue to cleanse Hong Kong of its pro-democracy “problem.”

Filed Under: china, free speech, hong kong, national security law