Beijing’s point man in Hong Kong could clear the air on patriotism and freedom of speech

A pro-establishment lawmaker’s criticism of a former Legco president’s questions about certain aspects of the proposed Article 23 legislation is troubling
The director of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, who is visiting the city, could clarify how patriotism and constructive criticism can coexist

Alice Wu

Published: 9:30am, 26 Feb 2024

Why you can trust SCMP

Beijing’s point man on Hong Kong, Xia Baolong, is in the city for his second fact-finding visit in a year. The director of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office will be taking the pulse of the city and its people, and gauging the impact of the government’s work.

The office said Xia aims to “work with the Hong Kong government and all sectors of society to plan a new stage of development for Hong Kong to better safeguard its long-term prosperity and stability and the long-term development of ‘one country, two systems’”.

His visit coincides with the financial secretary’s delivery of his budget speech at the Legislative Council and the public consultation on the legislation of Article 23 of the Basic Law.

Hong Kong enacting local laws to safeguard national security, fulfilling our constitutional obligation under Article 23 of the Basic Law, is no doubt a central government priority. Xia’s visit, during the last week of the public consultation on the legislation, is politically significant. These laws, after all, are meant to protect the interests of the country.

Hong Kong’s chief executive has said that “general opinion” supports “the overall goal of enacting Article 23” – that’s good news for Xia to deliver to the central government. The urgent need for such legislation is undeniable, unlike with the city’s first attempt in 2003.

Given the events of the years leading up to the 2019 social unrest and the high-profile trials related to it, together with the National People’s Congress Standing Committee’s passing of a national security law for Hong Kong in June 2020, completing the process now is makes sense.

03:33

Beijing passes national security law for Hong Kong

The debate is not over whether it should be done or when, but how and what the proposed laws entail. After meetings with diplomats and chambers of commerce, the secretary for justice said that the main areas of concern expressed were related to the proposed legislation’s provisions on state secrets and foreign interference.

Jasper Tsang Yok-sing, former president of the Legislative Council and a pro-establishment political heavyweight, in an op-ed published in Ming Pao on February 6 asked whether the revised definition of sedition was too broad and the list of state secrets proposed was exhaustive enough.

He was criticised by Joephy Chan Wing-yan, a rookie lawmaker from the Federation of Trade Unions, in a YouTube video for not being supportive of the legislation and raising doubts in an “opposition-leaning” newspaper. Chan found Tsang’s stance “puzzling” but it is her inflammatory take on his questions, which were not very different from what others have raised, that is troubling.

Lawmaker Joephy Chan has criticised former Legislative Council president Jasper Tsang for raising questions about some provisions of the government’s proposed Article 23 legislation. Photo: Jonathan Wong

Chan’s line of attack suggests that constructive criticism, and even highlighting what the government has already said are concerns that have been aired, is not to be tolerated in today’s patriots-only political system. Does the targeting of Tsang, whose patriotic credentials are solid, mean that patriots are held to a different standard? Are patriots only supposed to write op-eds for certain newspapers?

Have lawmakers forgotten that their duty is to scrutinise bills, to make good laws essentially, even if they want to support the government? Chan says she attacked Tsang out of the sense of a duty to defend the Article 23 legislation in support of Secretary for Security Chris Tang Ping-keung’s “rebuttal” mission. Tang has been very clear about what sort of comments are considered “hostile smears”. Tsang’s comments do not fall anywhere near that vicinity.

The government has been busy reassuring people that the freedoms Hong Kong enjoys – of speech and expression, including the freedom to criticise the government – remain intact. Chan’s treatment of Tsang’s comments is not very reassuring.

01:44

Article 23 targets only seditious intention, not freedom of speech, say Hong Kong ministers

The bigger danger here is that support for the government and scrutinising bills are being seen as mutually exclusive. Perhaps an “opposition-minded” person would see it that way. But they are not mutually exclusive – a lawmaker can support the government by making sure that the government’s policies and bills are sound. Judging those who raise legitimate questions about the government’s proposals is not conducive to rational debate.

As Xia is working with the government this week to better safeguard Hong Kong’s long-term stability, his team should take note of this type of infighting within the patriotic camp. He must clear the air on this sort of toxic rationale, which insists that certain members of society are not allowed to raise even constructive criticism and that some can only speak through certain channels and publications.

Alice Wu is a political consultant and a former associate director of the Asia Pacific Media Network at UCLA