Shades OffNational security law is a bitter betrayal of Hong Kong’s promise and exposes all to fear and intimidation

Anyone who disagrees with the Communist Party line is likely to become open to bullying, credit-scoring and revenge – reminiscent of the weaponisation of fear during the Cultural Revolution

It’s no surprise some people are reconsidering their retirement plans

3-MIN READ3-MIN

A large group of detainees sit on the ground as the police set up a cordon in Causeway Bay, Hong Kong, on May 27, when hundreds took to the streets to oppose the national anthem law and the national security law. Photo: EPA-EFE

Published: 9:00am, 2 Jun 2020Updated: 9:00am, 2 Jun 2020

Betrayal is the most apt word I can find to describe my feelings about Beijing’s foisting of a national security law on Hong Kong. I had been optimistic on July 1, 1997, when the city passed to Chinese rule, and ceased to be a British colony, under the “one country, two systems” concept of governance.

There was no reason to disbelieve the assertions that the city would have a “high degree of autonomy”, and freedoms as they existed would remain and even be strengthened. Now, I am disappointed and have lost all trust; like some other foreigners, I have to reconsider my plans to retire in the place that I have called home for so long.

Details of the law are not yet clear, but the National People’s Congress in Beijing had no difficulty rubber-stamping the idea. Authorities and their supporters have portrayed it as being targeted at a small percentage of Hong Kong’s population, specifically those considered a threat to the nation.

Existing laws already cover terrorism, criminal activities and violent acts; coupled with archaic handovers from colonial days, the government has every legal tool it could need to ensure national security. Among that which isn’t covered, though, is apparently foreign interference – and I, not being Chinese, am obviously uncomfortable about that.

Fear and intimidation are classic Communist Party methods of silencing critics. I have been enduring them in the comments section of my columns for months now, claims that my pointing out what I perceive to be wrong is considered biased and anti-government.

Never mind that freedoms of speech and expression are integral parts of “one country, two systems” and that a healthy society needs a diversity of views to thrive. A government that only tolerates praise and crushes criticism is bound to be flawed, broken and unrepresentative.