Opinion | Why Beijing’s national security law for Hong Kong does not spell the end of ‘one country, two systems’

On May 21, at its annual meeting in Beijing, the National People’s Congress dropped a bombshell by announcing that it would authorise its standing committee to draft legislation, at the central level, “to establish and improve the legal system and enforcement mechanisms for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to safeguard national security”.

The idea that authorities in Beijing would sidestep Hong Kong to promulgate a new national security law for Hong Kong – a version which could be sheared of the common law safeguards cherished by Hongkongers – and establish national security agencies in Hong Kong, immediately sent shock waves through Hong Kong and the international community.

The stock market fell sharply the following day, and the internet was buzzing with alarm about the end of “one country, two systems” and uncertainty about the future of Hong Kong.

As expected, the NPC’s decision was passed on May 28 with 2,878 votes in support, one vote against and six abstentions.

For someone who has lived through one crisis of confidence after another since the 1960s – the turbulence arising from the Cultural-Revolution-related riots of 1967, the jitters in the wake of the Sino-British negotiations on the future of Hong Kong, and the global condemnation of China after the June 4 events – the market volatility and the renewed fears about the end of Hong Kong’s separate way of life and systems fill me with a sense of déjà vu.

However, an epochal development this time is the statement by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on May 27 that he had certified to Congress that “Hong Kong does not continue to warrant treatment under United States laws in the same manner as US laws were applied to Hong Kong before 1997”.