A chance to expose the west's hypocrisy
If the government is looking for an opportune time to revive its deeply unpopular proposal for a national security law, it is now. That is not so much because Hongkongers have become less fearful of far-reaching laws to protect the nation, but because the government can now expose the hypocrisy of its foreign critics.
These detractors, primarily Britain and the United States, but also western Europe, helped undermine Hong Kong's earlier attempt at national security laws by taking the high ground. They insisted the government did not need intrusive measures that crossed moral, civil and human rights boundaries. Few observers noticed at the time that legislatures in those countries were passing national security laws in the name of fighting terrorism.
Now, three years after those emotionally charged days, a national security law is no longer on Hong Kong's radar screen, but the recognition remains that our constitution demands such a law. Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen knows it would be political suicide to breathe life back into the corpse just months before his bid for re-election. But Hong Kong is duty-bound to revisit the issue sooner or later, and fresh proposals could well be back on the agenda after the spring elections. That will, without doubt, again trigger overseas criticism designed to ensure that, in protecting national security, the government also protects civil and privacy rights.
By that time, US President George W. Bush is likely to have manipulated the current mood of hyped-up fear over fresh terror attacks to further tighten America's security laws. He has already authorised the secret monitoring of suspects without a judge's warrant. That practice has been ruled unconstitutional by the courts, but he is determined to have his way.
The US Patriot Act, passed after the September 11 attacks, is far more intrusive than the law the Hong Kong government tried to pass three years ago. Britain, France and others have tightened their laws in the wake of the London train attack last summer.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair says the rules of the game of civil rights have changed. Europe now wants to change them even further, with proposals to racially profile all Arab and Muslim air passengers as possible terrorists, following Britain's foiling this month of an alleged plot to blow up planes.
The very proposal is sickening, but at least it exposes the hypocrisy of the west. In effect, it says that while others must respect human-rights norms in protecting their nations, the west can ignore such standards to protect its own security.
Critics of this reading of western behaviour will argue that the west faces a very real threat of terror attacks while others do not - and Hong Kong, in particular, is quite safe. That is an arrogant argument, suggesting others are not qualified to assess - and act accordingly - to counter the threats facing them. India and Indonesia have suffered horrific terrorist attacks, and China has its own problems in the Muslim region of Xinjiang - but its crackdown continues to draw western condemnation as human rights abuse.
Beijing has its own reasons for wanting a national security law in Hong Kong, and has the sovereign right to guard against perceived threats. What Hong Kong can and should do is exert pressure to make sure the law strictly respects international standards of human rights, while safeguarding the nation.
Then it would be in a position to shame those who have pointed fingers at it. Hong Kong's government officials and politicians are wimps when it comes to pointing fingers back at their foreign critics. The national security law, if properly done, will give them the moral high ground to act like men - and women.
Michael Chugani is editor-in-chief of ATV English News and Current Affairs
