South China Morning Post
Advertisement
Advertisement
Members of the press take photos of Zhang Xiaoming, deputy director of the State Council’s Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, at a media conference in Beijing on July 1. Why was Zhang’s visit to Hong Kong to hear views on extending the term of Hong Kong’s current legislature shrouded in secrecy? Photo: Simon Song
Opinion
Opinion
by Michael Chugani
Opinion
by Michael Chugani

Beijing’s defence of national security in Hong Kong should be open and above board

  • Arrest of four students said to be linked to an overseas-based pro-independence group underlines how far-reaching the national security law can be, and how unclear the red lines are
  • Questions are raised, too, over the postponement of Legco elections and Beijing’s response to the UK’s offer of a citizenship path to Hongkongers
Michael Chugani
Michael Chugani
Why you can trust SCMP
Sometimes you are kept awake by things that don't affect you personally but affect you emotionally. That’s what happened to me last Wednesday after Hong Kong’s new police unit enforcing the national security law arrested four students for alleged secession.

As I lay in bed, trying not to think about what ghastly fate awaits them if convicted, a question kept popping up: how can four youngsters aged 16 to 21 possibly pose a security threat to China, a superpower?

The four belonged to the pro-independence Studentlocalism, which disbanded hours before the security law came into force. But police linked them to the overseas-based Initiative Independence Party – made up of former Studentlocalism members – which wants to establish an independent “Republic of Hong Kong”.

That is mission impossible. But I guess the law is the law. If the police believe you have crossed a red line, you will be arrested regardless of age. Advocating independence, even if you have no means to achieve it, is a red line under the security law.

A girl looks at a flier from a booth set up by Studentlocalism and Hong Kong National Front, both now disbanded, in Yuen Long in November 2017. Photo: Felix Wong

The law troubles me because I think it’s too sweeping, too vague, and too un-Hong Kong, but I am on the record as saying I oppose independence, and laws must be observed. The trouble with this law is that too many Hongkongers feel there are too many unclear red lines. It’s like trying to navigate a minefield. One wrong step and “boom”.

If only Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor had not triggered months of often-violent protests with her now-dead extradition bill. Beijing would then not have imposed such a draconian law. Western countries would not have responded by suspending extradition treaties with Hong Kong. And election officials would not have disqualified so many opposition candidates.
But that’s now academic. What is not is that Hong Kong – my birthplace – has become an eerily baffling place to me. Lam dumped the city in unchartered constitutional territory by delaying next month’s Legislative Council elections for a year on coronavirus health grounds. I am among many who believe she did it out of Beijing’s fear that the opposition would sweep the polls.

Elections delay may boost public distrust of Hong Kong government, group warns

What I find so baffling is the secrecy that surrounded this week’s visit by Zhang Xiaoming, deputy director of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, to discuss how Beijing should extend the life of the current Legco.

That Zhang met only loyalists was expected. But why not even acknowledge his visit? Why were those he met so tight-lipped? Extending Legco’s four-year term is a weighty constitutional issue which only the National People’s Congress can handle.

Will the four current Legco members who election officials disqualified for the now-delayed polls be allowed to serve in an interim legislature? If they were ruled unqualified to run, how can they be part of a caretaker Legco? But if they are banned, how is that fair to them and their voters?
Civic Party members, including Dennis Kwok (far right), Alvin Yeung (centre) and Kwok Ka-ki (second from left), three incumbent lawmakers who have been disqualified from running in the elections, meet the press in Hong Kong on July 30. Photo: AP

Only the NPC has the power to provide answers, which are likely to come during its four-day meeting starting on Saturday. Zhang came here only to collect views. But given the city is now on constitutional thin ice, Hongkongers deserve openness, not Zhang secretly huddling with loyalists.

What baffles me more than Zhang’s secret trip is Beijing’s threat to not recognise the British National (Overseas) passport as a travel document after Britain retaliated against the security law by offering BN(O) passport holders a citizenship path.

About 350,000 Hongkongers have BN(O) passports and another 2.5 million are eligible. Didn’t Lam say most Hong Kong people support the security law? Didn’t Beijing say it would only affect a small minority of people?

How will London’s plan to relax visa rules affect BN(O) passport holders?

If most Hongkongers support the law, which supposedly only targets a small minority, logic dictates that very few BN(O) passport holders will take up Britain’s offer. They will prefer to happily live in Hong Kong. So why threaten not to recognise the BN(O) passport?

Could it be a fear of possible mass migration? If Beijing carries out its threat, the security law will not only affect a small minority. It could potentially affect more than 2.8 million law-abiding BN(O) passport holders.

Michael Chugani is a Hong Kong journalist and TV show host

Post