My Take | Carrie Lam should leave national security law on back burner
As Hong Kong’s new leader admits, the conditions are simply not favourable for legislation now; she would do well to focus on livelihood issues that can win bipartisan support
Among the first pronouncements that Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor made as she took over the reins of government was the city’s need to introduce a national security law. Does she mean business? Probably not.
If you want to tie up the government and cause more social conflicts, there is no surer way than to reintroduce legislation for national security and universal suffrage. It’s certain to absorb the full attention and resources of key officials and make them neglect other policy areas to improve people’s lives over the next five years. If anyone appreciates that, it’s Lam. That’s why her goal, as she says, is to create the right conditions for future national security legislation, but without a time frame.
Mainland hardliners think a draconian security law is needed to counter rising dissent and separatism in Hong Kong. Many pan-democrats consider full democracy as an end in itself. But at present, there are no clear paths to achieving either goal without having our society tear itself apart.
Beijing already has all the national security laws it needs to intervene in Hong Kong should it suspect treason, secession, sedition, subversion, theft of state secrets or terrorism. Maybe it sees advantages in the city’s security services having the powers to deal with such threats on their own. But that’s a secondary issue.