National security law: how a ‘burning’ Hong Kong wore out Beijing’s patience

Tensions have long simmered on Hong Kong’s journey of integration with the mainland: the long-running protests triggered by the extradition bill were the last straw
Carrie Lam and her opponents share blame for jeopardising the future of the city and its young people

Anthony Cheung

Published: 6:00am, 2 Jun 2020

Why you can trust SCMP

The extradition controversy that exploded last June was like Mrs O’Leary’s cow, which ran amok, caused a fire in the family barn and apparently led to the Great Chicago Fire of October 1871. Hong Kong is ‘burning’, with some radical protesters chanting: “If we burn, you burn with us”, taken from Suzanne Collins’ Hunger Games: Mockingjay. Considering the city on the verge of breakdown, the National People’s Congress took the unexpected step of approving a national security law, causing local and international shock, even though the details have yet to be unveiled.

It is mind-boggling how a bill ignited Hong Kong’s worst governance crisis and placed the prospect of “one country, two systems” in jeopardy.

Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor was arguably at her political peak when she decided early last year to legislate for extradition arrangements with the mainland, Macau and Taiwan. The lack of such arrangements has a long history, dating from British colonial rule.

The Chan Tong-kai case, involving the murder in Taiwan of a young woman, also a Hongkonger like Chan, provided the reason for quick legislative action. The bill followed the international practice for extradition, with the court playing a judicial gatekeeping role and the chief executive having the final veto, where justified by public interest.

02:16

Murder suspect who triggered Hong Kong’s protest crisis issues apology as he leaves prison

If successful, it would have been hailed as killing two birds with one stone, but it was too huge a gamble. Lam had grossly underestimated the political sensitivities of extradition between “two systems” amid cross-strait tensions over “one China” in Taiwan’s election year.

Limited time was spared for public consultation on this complex and politically charged bill, and on securing stakeholder buy-in, especially from the legal sector. Even among businesses and the pro-establishment camp, there were murmurings about wider implications.

As critics played up the bill as a major threat to freedom and judicial integrity, some foreign governments and international media joined the chorus to “protect” Hong Kong, which Beijing perceived as a conspiracy to demonise China. A perfect storm was formed.

Things might have evolved differently if Chan’s case was decoupled from the bill. Legislative scrutiny could have taken longer, ironing out disagreements and mooting pragmatic revisions.

When mass protests broke out in June accompanied by violent confrontations outside the legislative complex, Lam agreed only to suspend proceedings. Her reluctance to withdraw the bill until September and refusal to launch an independent inquiry left her administration with little room to manoeuvre.

03:02

Historic protest in Hong Kong prompts leader’s apology but no withdrawal of extradition bill

The opportunity for closure and reconciliation was lost. Gaining moral high ground, the radicals pushed the protest movement into an onslaught against the local and central governments, engaging in the politics of fear seen in right-wing populism elsewhere.

Separatist sentiments ran high. Young students were quickly radicalised and mobilised. Mainland officials found it hard to understand why the post-reunification generation had become so alienated from their motherland.

The dependence on police suppression to end the conflict proved counterproductive. More ordinary people were persuaded to side with the protests. Amid agitation and polarisation, the radicals’ aim of burning Hong Kong succeeded, ironically aided by misplaced government responses.

When both sides tolerate violence, Hong Kong is in trouble

No firestorm can persist without strong winds. Hong Kong has been embroiled in rising tensions with the mainland on the journey of integration. The vicious circle goes back to Beijing’s lukewarm commitment to universal suffrage and the 2003 debacle in national security legislation, as obliged by Article 23 of the Basic Law.

For those well versed in the 1997 debates of the past, China had all along insisted on a unitary state (without residual powers vested in subsidiary governments) and non-separation between sovereign and administrative power. Its assertion of “comprehensive jurisdiction” in 2014, following that logic, was a blunt response to the Occupy Central mobilisations by pan-democrats.

Pro-democracy demonstrators hold placards before a phalanx of policemen while Chinese and Hong Kong flags are carried by military helicopters (background) near the venue where the National Day flag-raising ceremony is taking place, on the fourth day of the Occupy Central protests, in Wan Chai, on October 1, 2014. Photo: EPA

All countries have their national security laws and mechanisms. In Hong Kong’s case, Article 23 was a compromise during the drafting of the Basic Law in the late 1980s when the local community resisted a direct application of China’s national security law. As late as in 2015, when China passed a new national security law, it was not extended to Hong Kong.

However, Hong Kong’s failure in enacting national security legislation – compared to Macau, which did so a decade ago – has worn out Beijing’s patience. The upheaval since last year was the last straw. Central leaders are too wary of Hong Kong being used as a Trojan horse to destabilise China.

Many mainlanders are also horrified to see Hong Kong protesters shouting anti-China slogans, defacing the national emblem and flag, and attacking mainland organisations and visitors. Pressures build up to teach Hong Kong a lesson.

03:47

Hongkongers sympathise with protesters who vandalised legislature

Hostilities between the pan-democrats and Beijing have hardened into a tit-for-tat negation. The pro-establishment camp dominating the legislature seems ineffective in gauging and shaping public opinion. The chief executive’s bridging role has vanished. Moderate voices are being sidelined.

In the latest tug of war, the United States calls China a central threat of the times. When local opposition politicians lobby the Americans to “punish” China, Beijing is convinced of a brewing colour revolution and determined to strike back at all costs. Putting national security first, China as a state behaves no differently from the US and its allies.

Following a policy overhaul approved at the Communist Party’s Central Committee plenum last October, Beijing is re-imposing order, including a national security law for Hong Kong to be enforced by an organ under central authority.

The bone of contention lies not in the need for national security, but how a law made by Beijing can be compatible with Hong Kong’s concepts of law and preserve rights and freedoms protected by the Basic Law, plus issues such as how offences are defined, sanctions pitched and trials conducted. These have to be properly addressed.

Hong Kong will suffer collateral damage in the escalating US-China conflict. Pointing fingers at Beijing for restricting the city’s autonomy, the Trump administration is using Hong Kong to justify a larger war plan against China’s rise in what Graham Allison depicts as the Thucydides trap.

For Beijing, tightening controls is easier than winning hearts and minds. Short of restoring public confidence and fostering trust and inclusion through a mega-reconciliation process supported by political reform, any talk of rebooting Hong Kong is superficial.

Though pan-democrats hope to ride the popular outrage to a legislative majority in the September election, they promise no more than incessant confrontations and filibusters, making Hong Kong ungovernable.

The city is at a make-or-break juncture. It cannot afford to bleed continuously. Even if a total showdown can be avoided, a prolonged impasse will hollow out the once-charming global hub. The ultimate victims are the younger generation for whose future all warring sides claim to fight for.

While they like to blame Lam for her arrogance in risking the city’s future, her opponents too are responsible for arrogance and obstinacy of another kind, in driving Hong Kong down a slippery slope of no return.

Anthony Cheung is research chair professor of public administration at the Education University of Hong Kong and a former secretary for transport and housing (2012-17)

Post