Through the prism of neutrality, it is loud and clear that the Hong Kong (HK) national security law is neither a threat nor a blunder to its own region as well as the world. It does not harbour any covert or overt intention to undermine political dynamics, social metrics and economic outlook within the territory of Hong Kong and even for foreign lands. As legislation, it is in complete conformity with HK Basic Law, considered HK’s constitution that took effect in 1990. The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) continues to enjoy the power of decision over matters within its autonomous jurisdiction, including executive, legislative, independent judicial and final adjudication powers with the same spirit it had before the promulgation of the HK national security law.
Although more than 50 countries especially Pakistan eulogised the parameters spilled out in the law taking stock of its pros and cons, a handful of critics came with the other perspective. As to why they have used the voice of dissent; frankly speaking, it is just a matter of misperception.
HK national security law needs to be analysed on merit instead of enmity and bigotry. Since the blind man has no judge of colour, a proper eye will have to be opened to see facts and truth.
One of the arguments spawned by the league of critics is that the national security law is the beginning of the downfall of HK Basic law, which came into practice when the UK handed over HK to China in 1990 after mutual agreement. Having misunderstood the new law’s essence and pragmatism, they feel that Basic law is in turmoil.
Let’s analyse the Pandora’s Box to distinguish truth from false. For instance, Article 26 provides that permanent residents of the special autonomous region possess “in accordance with law” a right to vote and stand for election. Does national security law impair this clause? The answer is “no” and critics are speechless over it.
As per the spirit of Basic law, the city’s Legislative Council could, with a two-thirds majority, propose a bill for amendment, which the chief executive could endorse, which the National People’s Congress could with two-thirds majority consent to, and which could eventually become law. The National Security Law has nothing to do with it. With the new law taking effect, HKSAR cherishes complete autonomy as per Basic Law. On the situation, even critics are divided. The reason is simple; they are confused because they do not know how to frame their groundless opposition. Ensuring administration of Hong Kong by the Hong Kong people with the sense of a high degree of autonomy, the Chinese government carries out the basic policies of “one country, two systems.
The high degree of autonomy of the HKSAR has the following features: First, central authorities shall not interfere in affairs within the scope of autonomy of the HKSAR. Second, the HKSAR government shall have the final say on matters within its autonomous jurisdiction as prescribed in the Basic Law, calling for no approval by the central authorities. And third, the government of the HKSAR may, within the limits prescribed by the Basic Law, choose its own means of exercising its functions and powers.
Besides, a democratic political system is practiced in the HKSAR. Its major organs of power are the Chief Executive, the Government, the Legislative Council and the Court of Final Appeal. In addition, there is the Executive Council, a body which assists the Chief Executive in decision-making, and the Commission Against Corruption and the Audit Commission, which function independently and are accountable to the Chief Executive. Under the Government, the executive power organ of the HKSAR, there are the Department of Administration, the Department of Finance, the Department of Justice, and various bureaus, divisions and commissions. In the conditions and following the procedures prescribed by law, the Chief Executive shall have the power to dismiss the legislative organs; the legislative organs shall have the power to impeach the Chief Executive; the administrative organs shall be accountable to the legislative organs; the Chief Executive, administrative and legislative organs shall supervise and cooperate with each other. Here, a question is asked to those who are averse to the new law for nothing; can anybody explain how and where the HK political system has suffered at any point by the making and enforcement of HK national security law?
Basic Law established an executive-led political system with the chief executive at its core, rather than a structure based on the principle of separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branches. The chief executive’s power to appoint judges is “substantive rather than procedural”. However, antagonists misunderstood the powers and criteria once again.
In terms of passage of the new law on June 30, the connotation of sovereignty has also been misjudged. Being a sovereign country like others, China has a right to draft laws that may lay down lasting peace and stability in its territories, upholding the spirit of one country, two systems.
To revamp the security spectrum of people when the US, the UK, Australia and other countries incorporated new security laws into their systems, China welcomed them, deeming that every country has an innate right to formulate legislations in the better interest of their own people.
Prior to the 9/11 attacks, Congress had mainly focused on legislation to prevent international terrorism. But after the April 1995 Oklahoma City bombing in which American citizens blew up a federal building, domestic terrorism gained more attention. On April 24, 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the “Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996,” to make it easier for law enforcement to identify and prosecute domestic and international terrorists.
After 9/11, the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil, faced by millions of fearful voters, Congress approached US Attorney General John Ashcroft’s post-9/11 recommendations with a different eye and overwhelmingly passed the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act is a legislation passed in 2001 to improve the abilities of US law enforcement to detect and deter terrorism.
In December 2016, politicians in the UK passed the Investigatory Powers Act. The legislation has been hailed as the biggest reform of the country’s surveillance years for decades. Australia passed a new national security and foreign interference law two years ago. Australia said amendments to national security legislation were to combat “covert, deceptive or threatening actions” by foreign parties and provided law enforcement with telecommunications interception capabilities to investigate the crimes. Singapore also enacted its so-called fake news law last year to counter what it called foreign interference through hostile internet campaigns.
Ambassador of China to UK Liu Xiaoming, in a press conference, categorically said that the new law was introduced in response to the needs of the city, which had lacked a framework to tackle elements intent on causing chaos and disruption, The national security law was implemented in Hong Kong on 30 June to address offenses of secessionism, subversion, terrorism and colluding with a foreign power.
“After the law was adopted, British media carried massive reports and comments, which, to be frank, are full of misinterpretation, misunderstanding and even distortion,” Liu said.
Liu highlighted five key questions around the law; why was it necessary, does the law conflict with the “One Country, Two Systems” policy, will the law impair Hong Kong’s autonomy, has China failed to fulfil its international obligations and have other nations fulfilled their own international responsibilities. Liu said the new law has wide support in Hong Kong because, for the first time since the city’s return to China 23 years ago, it introduces a framework to tackle elements determined to cause chaos and disruption. He referenced rioting in the city that put security forces and state buildings under attack. “The law targets a very few criminals, but protects the great majority of Hong Kong people,” he said.
As far as the international community’s support is concerned, around 53 countries backed the HK national security law during the 44th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council. Those who supported are China, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Belarus, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Comoros, Congo-Brazzaville, Cuba, Djibouti, Dominica, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Lesotho, Mauritania, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, North Korea, Oman, Pakistan, Palestine, Papua New Guinea, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Tajikistan, Togo, UAE, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.