A guide to the new security law & why it matters
By Grace Calder
The introduction of the new Hong Kong Security Law has been a major human rights issue. However, the intricacies of it, and, most importantly, how it affects Hong Kong’s relative independence from mainland China, can be hard to understand.
Why does Hong Kong’s past matter?
After China’s loss in the Opium Wars of the 19th century, Hong Kong was given up to the British indefinitely. However, following an expansion of the area they ruled in 1898, Great Britain signed a 99 year lease for the territory which ended in 1997 when Prince Charles and Prime Minister Tony Blair presided over the ceremonial ‘handing back’ of Hong Kong to China.
However, this didn’t mean Hong Kong immediately became a part of the mainland in 1997. As a result of over a hundred years of British colonial rule, the extent to which Hongkongers identified as mainland Chinese was minimal, and many wished to hold onto Hong Kong’s specific governance. This form of government is broadly based on British Common Law and has some, although limited, democracy in stark contrast to mainland China’s communist one-party rule.
So what happened to Hong Kong?
To reach some sort of compromise, Hong Kong became designated as a ‘Special Administrative Region’, and following the idea of ‘one party, two systems’ the region has maintained relative autonomy from China. However, this arrangement (called The Basic Law) was only ever agreed to by the Chinese for a period of 50 years, until 2047. In recent years a large effort has been made by the mainland Chinese government to gradually erode Hong Kong’s independence.
Where does the National Security Law fit into this?
The National Security Law is the latest Chinese attempt to usurp Hong Kong independence and has caused global outrage. According to China, the law is an attempt to bring stability to Hong Kong after long periods of civil protest against the perceived encroachment of Hong Kong’s autonomy by mainland China. These protests have been routinely met with force by Chinese police; use of tear gas, rubber bullets and water canons are commonplace.
Why is the law so controversial?
Firstly, it was mostly passed in secret with only a handful of people (not including Carrie Lam, Hong Kong’s chief executive) party to the contents of the legislation before its passage. Secondly, the scope and uncertainty of the law caused much of the dispute surrounding the bill.
The law includes 66 articles and centres on four key offences the Chinese government wish to control in Hong Kong. These include “subversion”, “separatism”, “terrorism” and, most worrying for Hong Kong’s image as a global, outward looking city, “collusion with foreign countries.” Furthermore, under the law the most ‘complex’ of cases can be tried in mainland Chinese courts that frequently implement assured conviction trials and harsh penalties, such as life sentences. The secretive nature of the Chinese judiciary also means that these cases can be held behind closed doors with no media or public access.
Additionally, the law applies to non-resident foreigners. Therefore, foreigners who call for sanctions against China (which is becoming increasingly common in response to numerous reported human rights abuses by the Chinese government) can also be prosecuted under the National Security Law. This means that foreign bodies, such as media outlets and NGO’s, are now severely limited in the work they can do protecting human rights and reporting in Hong Kong.
What responses have been taken?
Described as a ‘takeover’ of Hong Kong, the National Security Law has severely undermined the prospect of free speech and the right to protest in Hong Kong. Swift global retaliation has followed, with Boris Johnson offering up to 3 million Hong Kong residents UK citizenship. It
is clear that the National Security Law will be a fundamental global issue for a long time yet.
Commenti