How Hong Kong should cope with the national security law: keep calm and carry on

Given that the law on the mainland targets those who oppose the Communist Party, the same could be expected for Hong Kong
Nevertheless, it would be best for Hongkongers not to panic, but get on with their lives instead

Peter Kammerer

Published: 6:30am, 30 Jun 2020

Why you can trust SCMP

Laws govern our lives. They limit where we can go, what we can do and what we can say. Beijing’s law for safeguarding national security in Hong Kong is no different. We should be aware of its intent, but not fret or fear its existence. We have to put it to the back of our minds and get on with our lives.

Much has been said and written about this law with its six chapters and 66 articles, all without anyone having set eyes on it. Officials in Beijing and Hong Kong contend it will not affect existing freedoms and that it is intended to “uphold and improve” the “one country, two systems” model that makes the city different from mainland China.

Major companies and pro-government groups have supported it without knowing specifics. Pro-democracy advocates claim its introduction spells the end of one country, two systems, the city’s promised high degree of autonomy and judicial independence.

The law covers four categories of crimes – secession, subversion of state power, terrorist activities and collusion with foreign or external forces to endanger national security. Who specifically they are aimed at has never been clarified, but it is easy enough to guess given that there is a similar law on the mainland.

The target is anyone who opposes, or even suggests opposition to, the Chinese Communist Party and its authority. As Beijing has the ultimate say in all matters pertaining to Hong Kong through its right to interpret all provisions of the Basic Law, the city’s mini-constitution, the Hong Kong government acts as its local arm and is therefore also covered.

03:03

Activist Joshua Wong expects to be ‘prime target’ of national security law in Hong Kong

Where this leaves me and most other Hongkongers who want democratic governance for the city is therefore troubling. This law is, in effect, a mainland one and those across the border who advocate such rights are hounded, harassed, intimidated and, when they persist, charged with crimes like those outlined in the national security law for Hong Kong.

Freed Chinese human rights lawyer to challenge conviction

People who don’t get the hint end up in prison; Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo, who was one such advocate, died there. That the Basic Law speaks of universal suffrage is immaterial; China’s constitution also mentions democracy.

Democracy as defined by the Communist Party is not as the West would have it, though. It is with “Chinese characteristics”, which, as with all matters pertaining to Beijing, is defined however the nation’s top officials want it to be.

Given how protesters seeking Western-style democracy are being ignored in Hong Kong, pan-democrat lawmakers are shunned and every effort made to sideline and silence democratic voices, it’s obvious in which direction governance in the city is heading. It’s all about ensuring Beijing’s authoritarian voice is the only one allowed.

Protesters hold up six fingers symbolising their demands, which include universal suffrage, at a shopping mall in Hong Kong on May 10. Photo: AFP

But that’s not what I, or millions of other Hong Kong people, want. We know the benefits of being able to freely choose who represents our interests in government as opposed to the constraints and limitations of mainland-style authoritarianism.

The law will not end protests or calls for genuine democracy. Hong Kong is not the mainland; people here think differently on account of their distinct history and experience, so oppressing, suppressing and threatening will not work.

Looming security law for Hong Kong sparks jitters in literary scene

The new law is claimed to be aimed at a small number of people. We won’t know just how small until the first warnings, arrests and charges are made. But it would be wrong to treat this law any differently from others on the books. There is no need to panic or be fearful.

We should continue as we always have, doing and thinking as we do. To change our ways would be to give up Hong Kong’s advantages to other cities in China. If there is to be a knock on the door by secret police at 3am, it will come when it does. Let’s hope this isn’t what Beijing means by national security.

Peter Kammerer is a senior writer at the Post

Post