Despite the Hong Kong government's insistence that there is no timetable for enacting Article 23 legislation, the China Daily, the authoritative voice of the Communist Party, is calling for early enactment of the legislation. What is one to make of this?
After legislator Emily Lau Wai-hing of The Frontier returned from a trip to Taiwan, where she took part in a conference on Hong Kong, a signed commentary in the newspaper declared that 'the national security law must be enacted, and it must be done as soon as possible'. The headline proclaimed: 'Security law before Lau causes disaster.'
What did Ms Lau do to warrant such denunciation? 'Lau has been going too far,' said the newspaper. 'She shook hands with [former president] Lee [Teng-hui] at a time when the [Article 23] legislation process was at a stalemate, giving people an impression that the Taiwan separatists are beckoning their counterparts in the territory.'
Does it mean that shaking hands will be criminalised after the National Security Bill is passed? Will giving people (that is, the China Daily) an impression that something may happen in the future be grounds for prosecution?
The newspaper went on: 'She dared to go to Taiwan to bad-mouth the 'one country, two systems' arrangement and asserted in one voice with Lee and Chen Shui-bian that 'Taiwan's independence or otherwise should be determined by the Taiwan people'.'
Does it mean that, in the eyes of the China Daily, Hong Kong residents do not have the freedom of travel and should not go to Taiwan? Does it mean they have no freedom of speech and should not say anything critical of the government?
Most interestingly, the newspaper thinks saying that Taiwan's future should be determined by the Taiwan people is equivalent to advocating independence. It means that, in the mind of the China Daily, the people of Taiwan favour independence, and so letting them choose their own destiny is the same as advocating independence.