How the Liberals stopped a constitutional crisis
As one who cares about China's national interest as well as that of Hong Kong, I salute each and every one of the legislators who contributed to forcing the government to defer tomorrow's legislative proceedings on the national security bill. They have done a tremendous service not only to the people of Hong Kong, but also to the people of China as a whole, who have a stake in the success of 'one country, two systems' and the ultimate reunification of Taiwan.
I believe the content of the national security bill is by and large reasonable and acceptable. The three major amendments recently proposed by the government would improve it further. Even so, if the government had gone ahead with the second and third readings of the bill tomorrow as planned, it would have been a huge mistake. This course of action would have unnecessarily provoked confrontation and massive protest, and would have put at risk the national interests of both Hong Kong and China. The protest could have turned tomorrow's Legco session into a Tiananmen-like confrontation.
I therefore applaud the Liberal Party's decision on Sunday to withdraw from the governing coalition and to join the call for a postponement of the legislative process. The Liberal Party's move demonstrated that at a moment of political life or death, Hong Kong's fate lay in the hands not of the central government or the chief executive, but of legislators and political parties. This momentous event in our history marks a victory for reason, for Hong Kong's autonomy, and for constitutionalism.
Last Tuesday evening, I was at the Hong Kong studio of CNN being interviewed on the implications of Article 23. I was at pains to state that everything said, written or done in Hong Kong in recent decades would still have been legal after the passage of the bill. Then the interviewer asked me why it was that hundreds of thousands of people had demonstrated against the bill, and I was at a loss. I could only reply that it was because the issues of civil liberties raised by the bill were very important and politically sensitive ones.
The government apparently believed that with the three latest amendments, not many people would join tomorrow's demonstration. I think this was a big miscalculation based on a gross misreading of the sentiments of the people who demonstrated last week. Most of them do not know much about the content of the bill, or whether the three latest amendments cover the major issues. They are unhappy at the unreasonable haste with which the bill has been pushed through by a government with nothing but contempt for public opinion. Public opinion leaders were wary of any tradeoffs involving the three concessions, and continued to view the legislative process as hasty, unreasonable and oppressive. If the bill had not been postponed, a big turnout was inevitable.
Imagine the following scenario. Tens of thousands of demonstrators surround Legco tomorrow while, inside, pro-government legislators force the bill through. The event receives the widest international attention, creating a perception that the Chinese government, acting through its proxies in Hong Kong, is imposing a repressive law against the democratically expressed will of the people of Hong Kong.
This would have done irreparable harm to the reputation of the central government and impressed on the minds of millions of people around the world that the 'one country, two systems' principle was a lie.
Forcing the bill through Hong Kong's legislature would have directly jeopardised China's stake in re-unification with Taiwan. Most people, including the people of Taiwan, would have formed their own conclusion that the law is repressive. Otherwise, why would so many people demonstrate against it? It is regrettable that the chief executive and his advisers failed to understand this.
I would like to stress that it is perception - not reality - that has mattered the most in this process. I believe that the national security bill, including the three latest amendments, is largely reasonable and acceptable from the point of view of human rights and civil liberties. But if it was passed in the midst of massive public protests, who would have believed me, or believed the government?
The government's original decision to go ahead with the legislative proceedings tomorrow entailed a 'lose-lose' situation. Consider one all-too-likely scenario - that the bill might well have been defeated in Legco in the midst of mass protest. A defeat for the government's security legislation would have struck the severest of blows to the authority of the Hong Kong government and irreparably damaged its credibility in the eyes of the central government. It might have precipitated a constitutional crisis.
Now consider the postponement that legislators have forced the government to adopt. It will take a few months to finalise the detailed provisions of the legislation. Given that the government has already agreed to give way on the three provisions that have aroused the strongest opposition, we can expect the deliberations on the bill in the next few months to be relatively uncontroversial. The government and the legislators concerned can engage in their normal bargaining process.
I see every reason why, if this process is handled in a competent manner by the relevant officials, it should arrive at an amicable settlement. There will be no excuse for a small number of activists to incite massive demonstrations when the second and third readings of the bill are conducted. Therefore, this course of action will enable the sense of crisis precipitated by last Tuesday's rally to be resolved without the occurrence of large-scale demonstrations or putting Hong Kong and China in the international spotlight.
Albert Chen is a professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Hong Kong, and a member of the Hong Kong Basic Law Committee of the National People's Congress Standing Committee
