Opinion | Hongkongers, stand up for a sensible debate on the national anthem law

Mike Rowse says expecting respect for a national anthem is not unprecedented in Asia. But, while some criticism in Hong Kong about the national anthem bill is hysterical, concern over the two-year prosecution window should be addressed

Reading Time:4 minutes

Some football fans in Hong Kong have taken to booing the Chinese national anthem before a match. A new bill proposes to punish disrespect for the anthem. Photo: AFP

Published: 7:00am, 14 Jan 2019Updated: 7:24am, 14 Jan 2019

Some 50 years ago, I lived for a few months in Bangkok. Our local cinema always played the Thai national anthem before the main feature film. There was a small notice at the bottom of the screen telling us to stand and everyone did. Even though I was a hippy at the time, and by nature rebellious, it seemed perfectly natural to stand along with everyone else.

I still remember there was a point during the rendition when the music stopped, the farangs in the audience would start to sit down but the locals remained standing. Sure enough, after a few seconds, the music resumed. I record this experience to illustrate that playing a country’s national anthem, and expecting everyone – both local and foreign – to show respect is by no means a new phenomenon in Asia.

It seems worthwhile pointing this out as we start our own community’s consideration of a bill to make respecting the Chinese national anthem, March of the Volunteers, a legal requirement. Or, to put it another way, disrespecting the anthem will be an offence potentially leading to a significant fine and even a jail term.

Judging by some of the reactions in the media and on talk shows, you would think this was the jackboot of a wicked administration coming down to crush the last vestige of freedom of the Hong Kong people. Is it really? Are espousers of such views being just a tiny bit hysterical? Has anyone heard of hyperbole?

Take, for example, the claim that the draft bill does not outline all the possible ways of behaving that might constitute disrespect. “People have a right to know exactly what they can and can’t do as a fundamental legal principle,” one legislator said on the radio. The rebuttal came quickly: “Any more than the law specifies all the ways in which you are not allowed to deliberately kill someone. However you do it, it is still murder, and that is against the law.” Is that so difficult to understand?

Even if Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Secretary Patrick Nip Tak-kuen were to list 50 possible ways to insult the anthem, you could bet your bottom dollar that some clever clogs would invent a 51st way. And if he listed 500 ways, you could be sure a determined dissident would still find one more.

Select Voice

Choose your listening speed

Get through articles 2x faster

1.25x

250 WPM

Slow

Average

Fast

00:0000:00

1.25x