Advertisement
Advertisement

Time for cool heads on national security laws

The sudden resignation of Liberal Party chairman James Tien Pei-chun from the Executive Council last night capped a week of high drama and strong emotion. The 500,000 who took to the streets last Tuesday could hardly have imagined the events that would flow from their demonstration of discontent with the government and its proposed national security laws.

Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa eventually reacted by announcing changes to the bill which only a week ago would have been unthinkable; lawmakers who had been helping speed it through the Legislative Council are now considering deferring the process; and there has been a flurry of visits by key players to Beijing to seek the views of mainland officials. Mr Tien had gone to Beijing last week to confer with officials from the Hong Kong and Macau Office. His decision to step down from Exco testifies to the intense pressure he faced. As a member of Exco, which decided to push through the amended bill despite strong public discontent, he had a duty to be bound by that decision. But the future of the Liberal Party would have been doomed had it got behind the government, as its defiance of public opinion would almost certainly have meant electoral defeat in next year's Legco election.

Before Mr Tien's resignation, the government probably felt it was entitled to push ahead with the enactment of the laws on Wednesday, as scheduled. The concessions it announced on Saturday go very close towards meeting the most important demands of the bill's opponents. Now the Liberal Party has sided with public opinion, it is almost certain that there will be enough votes among legislators to block the resumption of debate on the bill as scheduled.

Yet, now more than ever, there is a need for cool heads and steady nerves on the part of all involved - those on both sides of the political divide in Hong Kong and those in Beijing. There is a need for more understanding. The central government has a legitimate expectation that Hong Kong will enact national security legislation, a constitutional requirement critical to the 'one country' half of our political contract with the mainland. Six years after the handover, it is reasonable for Beijing to believe this should be done according to the government's timetable.

However, it should realise that this will put Mr Tung under intense pressure - the same pressure that has forced Mr Tien to resign from Exco. Mr Tung needs more time, and the mainland could help by being a little more accommodating.

But this is also a time for the democrats to show restraint. Having scored an unexpected victory, it will be tempting for them to engage in machismo politics, stepping up the attacks on Mr Tung and provoking the mainland. They should keep calm. It is in everyone's interests to avoid a long-running, bitter and divisive clash in Hong Kong, as well as a confrontation with the central government. There is now a need for a calm, thoughtful and rational approach to Article 23.

It is vital that the feelings of Hong Kong people are not misunderstood. It is true that they jealously guard the 'one country, two systems' concept and do not want the mainland to interfere in areas they believe to be within Hong Kong's autonomy. But the last thing they want is a confrontation with the mainland over the legislation to be passed under Article 23 of the Basic Law.

Their opposition to the bill does not mean they are against the central government, nor that they are unpatriotic. They simply see the national security laws as a Hong Kong issue, not one to be defined in rigid terms of whether they are for or against Beijing. This was demonstrated by the warmth with which Premier Wen Jiabao was greeted here, at much the same time that the march took place.

Post