Why compulsory patriotism may be overkill for Hong Kong

Patriotism “is a legal requirement now”, a senior Beijing official declared in the presence of our Chief Executive Carrie Lam, Secretary for Justice Teresa Cheng, Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma and other top officials of Hong Kong at the Basic Law 30th Anniversary Legal Summit on November 17.

I was reminded of the well-known saying, “First deserve, then desire”. Patriotism is mandatory in almost all countries. However, somehow it escaped the local and central authorities’ attention, or perhaps they do not realise, that love and respect have to be earned, not commanded or ordered.

If the national security law is so good for us, why do we have to advertise and explain it almost daily? We have been a part of China as of July 1, 1997. Under the communist regime, the reality is “one country, one system”. However, the Basic Law strangely promises “one country, two systems”. So were the words of the late and great Deng Xiaoping, the Joint Declaration and so on only formalities, to show the world that the Crown Colony of Hong Kong would be granted a high degree of autonomy for 50 years and nothing would be changed?

Hong Kong leader hails ‘timely and essential’ security law

Although almost all major countries have some sort of security law, most of them have fully independent judiciaries and they are not seen to be eager to prosecute and punish their citizens. Their legal process is not a steel trap and the administration does not behave like it only looks to punish.

In view of China’s perceived breaches of its international obligations, now Britain says it is considering pulling its judges out of Hong Kong’s highest court.

Dominic Raab, the British foreign secretary, revealed that with the promulgation of “chilling” national security legislation and the disqualification of opposition lawmakers, China had committed “two substantive breaches of the Joint Declaration”, the 1984 Sino-British agreement that paved the way for the city’s 1997 handover.

“This calls into serious question China’s commitment to the ‘one country, two systems’ framework,” Raab further said in the report, describing the first half of 2020 as “the most concerning period in Hong Kong’s post-handover history” and highlighting the security law’s chilling effects on freedoms. Legal experts have warned that the absence of overseas judges from the city’s top court could deal a severe blow to its reputation for judicial independence.

Hong Kong’s chief justice warns against politicising courts

Some sort of security law was inevitable for Hong Kong, as the protesting radicals did go too far. But, on top of the national anthem and national education mandates, I wonder if the need for further proof of patriotism would not be a sort of overdose for a city used to enjoying almost full freedom and judicial independence. I hope our elders in the mainland realise this and act accordingly.

A.L. Nanik, Tsim Sha Tsui