With Hong Kong having got back on the right track of development three years after the implementation of the National Security Law for Hong Kong (NSL), some members of society recently came up with the view that the city should now shift its focus to advancing economic development from safeguarding national security.
They argued that a heavy-handed approach in enforcing the NSL could be inimical to the city’s unique advantages because it would give Western governments a reason to derecognize Hong Kong’s “two systems” governance framework, leading to passive de-internationalization for the special administrative region.
Plausible though it sounds, such a view failed to take the whole picture into consideration. Safeguarding national security and maintaining Hong Kong’s unique advantages do not contradict each other.
It is illogical and fallacious to suggest that the strict enforcement of the NSL will lead to intensifying Western efforts to derecognize Hong Kong’s “two systems”. To see through this fallacy, one needs to realize that the US-led West interprets “one country, two systems” differently from China’s original design as defined by the Basic Law.
In the eyes of many Western politicians, Hong Kong is an independent political entity that is free from the jurisdiction of the Chinese central government. By prioritizing “human rights” over China’s sovereignty, they have rationalized their interference in Hong Kong’s affairs and tried to use the city to harm China.
Moreover, containing China has become Washington’s strategic goal ever since it designated China as the US’ strategic rival several years ago. With or without the NSL, Washington will continue to create trouble for Hong Kong. Were Washington to stop treating Hong Kong as a separate customs territory, it would be part of its overall China strategy, rather than a retaliatory action against the implementation of the NSL in Hong Kong. Washington will not spare Hong Kong from its anti-China strategy even if Hong Kong stops enforcing the NSL.
It’s equally unconvincing to argue that the strict enforcement of the NSL will lead to Hong Kong’s “de-internationalization”.
By restoring peace, social order and harmony in Hong Kong, the NSL is conducive to the internationalization of the city. This is evidenced by the fact that overseas businesspeople, investors and visitors, many of whom had been deterred by the anti-extradition unrest in 2019, are now pouring into the city. In particular, after the debacles of Silicon Valley Bank and Credit Suisse earlier this year, a wealth of international money flooded Hong Kong, attesting to the city’s allure to international capital as a free port and safe haven.
Hong Kong’s level of internationalization is too sturdy to be undermined by US politicians. Many multinational companies, including those from the US, are optimistic about China’s future. Business tycoons such as Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, and Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla, visited China and are set to expand their operations in the country. Their vote of confidence vindicates the extraordinary appeal of the Chinese market.
China registered a 5.5 percent GDP growth in the first half of this year and a much higher 6.3 percent in the second quarter, which once again suggests China is one of the most powerful engines for global economic growth. As Hong Kong is a conduit for foreign capital to access the Chinese mainland and for Chinese enterprises to go abroad, the mainland’s economic prowess will help further cement Hong Kong’s status as an international financial, shipping and trading center.
While the NSL has demonstrated a strong deterrent effect, there are still undercurrents beneath Hong Kong’s apparent calm and peace. It’s fair to say that “hard confrontation” is a thing of the past, but “soft resistance” remains.
Whenever the SAR government endeavors to resolve the city’s deep-seated problems, there are always people trying to create controversy and mess up the effort in the same way as the subversives did in the past.
Besides, the separatists who fled overseas have not given up their agenda. They are busy calling for anti-China Western politicians to harm China and the SAR, spreading disinformation to advocate secessionism, and colluding with separatist forces in Taiwan and elsewhere to advance their anti-China campaign.
Some people reckon it’s time to ease the enforcement of the NSL as no one dares to endanger national security now. Despite the immediate effect of the NSL, it has yet to fall into place completely. For instance, Article 7 of the NSL stipulates that “The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall complete, as early as possible, legislation for safeguarding national security as stipulated in the Basic Law of the HKSAR and shall refine relevant laws”. This clearly refers to legislation according to Article 23 of the Basic Law, which is long overdue 26 years after the implementation of the Basic Law.
Another example is Article 9 of the NSL, which specifies that the SAR should strengthen its work on safeguarding national security and prevention of terrorist activities … take necessary measures to strengthen public communication, guidance, supervision and regulation over matters concerning national security, including those relating to schools, universities, social organizations, the media, and the internet.
It’s less than certain that these “necessary measures” have all been rolled out, but they must be carried out for a long period to be effective.
Article 10 of the NSL, moreover, states that the SAR should “promote national security education in schools and universities and through social organizations, the media, the internet and other means to raise the awareness of Hong Kong residents of national security and of the obligation to abide by the law”. Obviously, national security education is also a long-term task.
During enforcement of the NSL, new circumstances and problems may emerge because of inaccurate understanding of the law and other factors. Therefore, rectification or adjustment is warranted in the implementation process. But the NSL must stay on course.
The author is vice-chairman of the Committee on Liaison with Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan and Overseas Chinese of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, and chairman of the Hong Kong New Era Development Thinktank.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of Bauhinia Magazine.
With Hong Kong having got back on the right track of development three years after the implementation of the National Security Law for Hong Kong (NSL), some members of society recently came up with the view that the city should now shift its focus to advancing economic development from safeguarding national security.
They argued that a heavy-handed approach in enforcing the NSL could be inimical to the city’s unique advantages because it would give Western governments a reason to derecognize Hong Kong’s “two systems” governance framework, leading to passive de-internationalization for the special administrative region.
Plausible though it sounds, such a view failed to take the whole picture into consideration. Safeguarding national security and maintaining Hong Kong’s unique advantages do not contradict each other.
It is illogical and fallacious to suggest that the strict enforcement of the NSL will lead to intensifying Western efforts to derecognize Hong Kong’s “two systems”. To see through this fallacy, one needs to realize that the US-led West interprets “one country, two systems” differently from China’s original design as defined by the Basic Law.
In the eyes of many Western politicians, Hong Kong is an independent political entity that is free from the jurisdiction of the Chinese central government. By prioritizing “human rights” over China’s sovereignty, they have rationalized their interference in Hong Kong’s affairs and tried to use the city to harm China.
Moreover, containing China has become Washington’s strategic goal ever since it designated China as the US’ strategic rival several years ago. With or without the NSL, Washington will continue to create trouble for Hong Kong. Were Washington to stop treating Hong Kong as a separate customs territory, it would be part of its overall China strategy, rather than a retaliatory action against the implementation of the NSL in Hong Kong. Washington will not spare Hong Kong from its anti-China strategy even if Hong Kong stops enforcing the NSL.
It’s equally unconvincing to argue that the strict enforcement of the NSL will lead to Hong Kong’s “de-internationalization”.
By restoring peace, social order and harmony in Hong Kong, the NSL is conducive to the internationalization of the city. This is evidenced by the fact that overseas businesspeople, investors and visitors, many of whom had been deterred by the anti-extradition unrest in 2019, are now pouring into the city. In particular, after the debacles of Silicon Valley Bank and Credit Suisse earlier this year, a wealth of international money flooded Hong Kong, attesting to the city’s allure to international capital as a free port and safe haven.
Hong Kong’s level of internationalization is too sturdy to be undermined by US politicians. Many multinational companies, including those from the US, are optimistic about China’s future. Business tycoons such as Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, and Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla, visited China and are set to expand their operations in the country. Their vote of confidence vindicates the extraordinary appeal of the Chinese market.
China registered a 5.5 percent GDP growth in the first half of this year and a much higher 6.3 percent in the second quarter, which once again suggests China is one of the most powerful engines for global economic growth. As Hong Kong is a conduit for foreign capital to access the Chinese mainland and for Chinese enterprises to go abroad, the mainland’s economic prowess will help further cement Hong Kong’s status as an international financial, shipping and trading center.
While the NSL has demonstrated a strong deterrent effect, there are still undercurrents beneath Hong Kong’s apparent calm and peace. It’s fair to say that “hard confrontation” is a thing of the past, but “soft resistance” remains.
Whenever the SAR government endeavors to resolve the city’s deep-seated problems, there are always people trying to create controversy and mess up the effort in the same way as the subversives did in the past.
Besides, the separatists who fled overseas have not given up their agenda. They are busy calling for anti-China Western politicians to harm China and the SAR, spreading disinformation to advocate secessionism, and colluding with separatist forces in Taiwan and elsewhere to advance their anti-China campaign.
Some people reckon it’s time to ease the enforcement of the NSL as no one dares to endanger national security now. Despite the immediate effect of the NSL, it has yet to fall into place completely. For instance, Article 7 of the NSL stipulates that “The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall complete, as early as possible, legislation for safeguarding national security as stipulated in the Basic Law of the HKSAR and shall refine relevant laws”. This clearly refers to legislation according to Article 23 of the Basic Law, which is long overdue 26 years after the implementation of the Basic Law.
Another example is Article 9 of the NSL, which specifies that the SAR should strengthen its work on safeguarding national security and prevention of terrorist activities … take necessary measures to strengthen public communication, guidance, supervision and regulation over matters concerning national security, including those relating to schools, universities, social organizations, the media, and the internet.
It’s less than certain that these “necessary measures” have all been rolled out, but they must be carried out for a long period to be effective.
Article 10 of the NSL, moreover, states that the SAR should “promote national security education in schools and universities and through social organizations, the media, the internet and other means to raise the awareness of Hong Kong residents of national security and of the obligation to abide by the law”. Obviously, national security education is also a long-term task.
During enforcement of the NSL, new circumstances and problems may emerge because of inaccurate understanding of the law and other factors. Therefore, rectification or adjustment is warranted in the implementation process. But the NSL must stay on course.
The author is vice-chairman of the Committee on Liaison with Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan and Overseas Chinese of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, and chairman of the Hong Kong New Era Development Thinktank.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of Bauhinia Magazine.
