Advertisement
Opinion | If Hong Kong had enacted national security laws on its own, Beijing wouldn’t be stepping in
- Beijing trusted Hong Kong to implement Article 23, but its trust was misplaced. The Basic Law is a two-way street – it isn’t fair to accuse the central government of failing to comply with the mini-constitution when Hong Kong itself has not fulfilled its obligations
Reading Time:4 minutes
Why you can trust SCMP
Countries everywhere have laws protecting national security, and the duty of citizens to safeguard their country’s interests is generally acknowledged. National security, moreover, is of such importance that it is invariably legislated for by national parliaments.
It was, therefore, remarkable that when the National People’s Congress enacted the Basic Law in 1990, it authorised the future Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to “enact laws on its own” prohibiting treason, secession, sedition and subversion against the central government, in Article 23.
This was a huge display of faith in Hong Kong, not least because national security concerns the entire country. It also showed Beijing’s awareness that if national security was dealt with regionally, it would, in keeping with the Basic Law’s underlying philosophy, help allay concerns over China’s resumption of sovereignty in 1997.
Advertisement
Its trust, however, was misplaced. Although Article 23 is mandatory, the national security laws have still, after 23 years, not been enacted. While there is no timetable for implementation, it was obviously expected within a reasonable time. In Macau, the equivalent national security laws were enacted within 10 years of its reunification.
Although Tung Chee-hwa’s government attempted to implement a very mild Article 23 in 2003, this was thwarted by street protests and internal dissent, and the issue has been parked ever since.
02:22
Hong Kong freedoms will not be eroded by Beijing’s national security law, Carrie Lam says
Hong Kong freedoms will not be eroded by Beijing’s national security law, Carrie Lam says
It is paradoxical that those who have most strenuously opposed its enactment, such as former governor Chris Patten, who in February said he was “surprised and saddened” that Article 23 was again being mooted, are the very same people who wax loudest about Beijing’s alleged non-compliance with the Basic Law. The Basic Law, after all, is a two-way street, and Hong Kong has fallen down on its responsibilities towards the country.
Advertisement
Select Voice
Choose your listening speed
Get through articles 2x faster
1.25x
250 WPM
Slow
Average
Fast
1.25x