The Fate of Authoritarian System (Lee Yee)
As the Legislative Council (LegCo) election date is getting closer, the Hong Kong pro-CCP government pondered what tactic to use – the DQ (disqualifying candidates) tactic or the postponement tactic? Then came the latest rumor: the election will be postponed for a year due to the epidemic.
Only the mentally-challenged would believe that excuse.
Although many pan-democratic camp (pan-dems) candidates cannot make up their minds on which direction to go within their response to the confirmation letter, the government is still wary of the DQ tactic: if it excavates what the candidates did or said in the past and uses that to mass DQ them, people would be appalled by it and reaction from the international side would be strong; if it accepts their writings in the confirmation letter and let them through the gate, then it is extremely likely the pan-dems would win the election. So DQ wouldn’t work, postponement it is then.
The postponement tactic is actually directly in breach of the Basic Law Article 69 which sets the term of office for four years. Of course, when such unrefined law like the National Security Law (NSL), which blatantly violates the Basic Law, can be so speedily passed and immediately implemented, then the Basic Law has long become garbage in the eye of the CCP, who can now stamp and approve all the dirty deeds with the National People's Congress (NPC) seal and fool itself that everything is legal.
But this could be another miscalculated blunder in the making. Postponing the election for a year would actually attract more criticism from the international society than the DQ tactic, because although DQ is against human rights, it is not unlawful to do so; however, the postponement has obviously violated the constitution. Maintaining the regulations of a constitutional system is the most basic rule a civilized government required to follow. The western politicians are the most stubborn about this.
Despite the news of last year’s anti-ELAB movement being closely followed worldwide, apart from the US, the western countries did not react too much on the parliamentary levels; hiding Wuhan virus from everyone which led to a global pandemic had also not caused any actions except Trump who flared up plenty of times, and some minor mutterings from some western countries with no real action; The noise surrounding the China-US trade war escalated, but many western countries were reluctant to get involved or ban Huawei as they wanted to maintain a relationship with China. But then when Hong Kong NSL was launched, and all hell broke loose. Within a month, the US stepped up its anti-China action and gradually revealed its sanctioning measurements. The Five Eyes and even the pro-China EU have all halted their extradition treaty with Hong Kong. The UK became the first country that banned Huawei.
Halting the extradition treaty is due to the NSL claims that criminals can be sent to China to go on trial, which was a different scenario when the treaty was signed. The NSL has indicated that Hong Kong’s judicial system is no longer independent from China. Last year, 65% of China’s foreign investment was via Hong Kong. Foreign investors chose Hong Kong as a base because they believed Hong Kong had judicial independence. However, with the implementation of NSL, it is no longer the case.
Right now, there are increased actions against the NSL from western countries daily and this sanctioning circle is growing. China has to utter gibberish like “angry”, “sternly refute” to different countries every day.
The CCP and Hong Kong pro-CCP camp thought postponing LegCo election is just a trivial matter, but Pompeo said he would pay extra attention to Hong Kong’s LegCo election in September; UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab has also told Wang Yi, China’s Foreign Minister, the same in a call.
Yan Zeya, a Taiwanese author said yesterday on Facebook, “I hope Taiwan and Hong Kong would break this misconception, that the left-wing in the West are pro-China, and the right-wing are anti-China. Take the New Zealand Prime Minister as an example. She is from the Labor Party, left-wing, but not pro-China. How the left and right are divided in a country depends on internal affairs and its economy, but has nothing to do with foreign policies. Its attitude towards another country is not distinguished by left or right, but hawk and dove. Some country’s hawks ally with the right, some with the left, some do not ally with any side. Furthermore, if there are more than one hostile countries, then the same country could be a hawk to country A, and a dove to country B.
NZ Prime Minister Ardern clearly indicated during last week’s China Business Summit, that the NZ government differ from China on some issues, including Hong Kong NSL, the situation of Uyghurs in Xinjiang and Taiwan joining the WHO. She emphasized, that these subjects are extremely important to the Kiwis (New Zealand people).
Lately, the China policies of the US and western countries are becoming more aligned – they are all becoming the eagle. The catalyst of this drastic change is indeed Hong Kong NSL; and the postponement of the LegCo election would only exacerbate the anti-China and anti-Hong Kong actions.
Once a rule is broken, one would keep breaking it; to use a lie to cover a lie, it must be a bigger lie; to fix the loophole by breaking rules, the hole would only get bigger; to use mistake to mend another mistake would only create a bigger mistake. And this, is the fate of the authoritarian system.
「national security law implementation rules」的推薦目錄:
national security law implementation rules 在 李怡 Facebook 的精選貼文
Entanglement under chilling effect (Lee Yee)
The first line of the “Manifesto of the Communist Party” issued in 1848 said: “A spectre is haunting Europe – the spectre of communism”. Back then, Hong Kong was about to open for trade. And now, this “spectre of communism” has dressed in a national security law, haunting Hong Kong. Since the National Security Law taking effect last week, the ferocious voices of resistance have been fading out of the media. Chris Yeung, the Chairperson of the Hong Kong Journalists Association, has pointed out that “chilling effect” has turned up. He was asked by a reporter whether it is still at journalists’ option to interview Chris Patten. Except for Apple Daily, almost all media have drawn a veil over any affairs pertaining to the National Security Law. Even perennial contributors to the forum and finance section of the news medium have bidden farewell to readers.
In the past few days, my relatives overseas and friends in Hong Kong have been more attentive to me than usual, not asking me if I would leave Hong Kong, but telling me to leave. Will I leave off writing? Is writing with extreme caution worthwhile? I am already at an advanced age, and have already accomplished what I aspired to.
Though I encouraged readers “not to get predominated by fear” in my column last week, to say I am not scared is to deceive myself and others, not least when being confronted with a law of extreme power from a country alien to us. Hong Kongers are used to observing laws, inclusive of the evil ones. Beijing and Hong Kong government officials have asked Hong Kong people time and again not to defy the law, yet on the day of promulgation when the citizens were still digesting it, the law was enforced in a manner we are not familiar with. How could journalists and columnists not feel threatened?
The National Security Law pledges respect and protection for human rights, including freedom of speech, assembly and demonstration. The said rights are enshrined in the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China as well, but their implementation is a far cry from those implemented in Hong Kong in the past. In my lifetime career as an editor and writer, I had been able to say anything and express any opinions including those in demonstrations. Before the National Security Law coming into effect, the judicature in Hong Kong had changed already. Afterward, it will only get worse.
In legal cases of western countries with a common law system, “promoting” and ‘instigating” are not considered criminal acts because they are intents which are intangible, invisible and unprovable, and it is hardly possible to demarcate “instigating” from “appealing” , and “promoting” from “advocating”. Yet, in recent years, Hong Kong courts have been making sentences based on the offence of “inciting”. Under the National Security Law, it is barely feasible for me to talk the court out of sentencing me for “inciting” with my commentaries.
I just write to put forward my viewpoints that are open to free interpretations of which I do not have foreknowledge, whereby I can ensure my writings do not “incite” Hong Kong citizens to “loathe” the central and SAR government. However, once the sentiment is generated, the author is embroiled in a legal case.
The National Security Law states that “the HKSAR shall promote national security education in schools and through social organisations, the media, the internet and other means”. Is it a crime not to promote “national security education” in schools and through the media and the internet, inasmuch as it is a law already?
Two words “and universities” were put after “in schools” in the English edition issued three days after the promulgation of the Law. Shall we follow the Chinese or English edition? Will there be more updates coming up?
Two days ago, the Committee for Safeguarding National Security established in accordance with the National Security Law issued “Detailed Rules for Implementation” in a meeting, in which Article 5 stipulates that the authorities shall “call for information about activities relating to Hong Kong from foreign and Taiwan’s political organizations and their respective representatives.” If foreign and Taiwan’s political organizations and their representatives do not provide the police with information as required, the relevant personnel will face 6 months in jail and a fine of HKD100,000 upon conviction; if the information provided is fake, incorrect or incomplete, a 2-year jail and a fine of HKD100,000 are expected.
How is the implementation of the National Security Law enforced on overseas countries and Taiwan? How are people in those countries convicted of the crime? Will wolf warriors be dispatched to the U.S. and Taiwan to snatch them back to Hong Kong? Taiwan Executive Yuan President Su Tsengchang responded, “The law enacted in China goes so far as to exercise jurisdiction over everywhere and all the peoples around the world, even over Taiwan.”
The National Security Law and its enforcement is too elusive for ordinary people to understand, and impalpable for writers to manoeuvre. If it is too precarious for one to tread a tightrope, staying away from it is an easy way out. Is it the writing or the person that should stay away from it? This is exactly the entanglement a lot of writers and I cannot stay away from for now.