Among the 500,000-odd Hongkongers who took to the streets to protest against planned security legislation on July 1, 2003, was a young man in his 20s. Now 46, he told HKFP that he did not see the need for such laws as, two decades on, authorities again sought to enact them.
“The government has been talking about Article 23 for 20 years, but I can’t see the urgency for it at all,” the surveyor, who asked not to be named for fear of reprisals, said on Tuesday, the day the government launched the public consultation period for city’s homegrown security law.
He was referring to Article 23 of the city’s mini-constitution, the Basic Law, which stipulates that Hong Kong “shall enact laws on its own” to safeguard national security. The original attempt was scrapped after the mass protest the surveyor took part in.
In September that year, the bill was withdrawn with officials citing the public’s “concerns” about it. Just over 20 years later, the space for public displays of dissent has shrunk dramatically.
The surveyor questioned the need for the city’s own security law after Beijing imposed its own such legislation on Hong Kong in June 2020, criminalising secession, subversion, terrorism and foreign collusion. “Even without Article 23, the government is just doing what it thinks is right. I don’t think it will make a significant difference,” he said in Cantonese.
“You can see that under the national security law, people’s freedoms are already shrinking.”
The government says enacting legislation as required under Article 23 will plug gaps left by the 2020 law.
That gave police sweeping new powers, alarming democrats, civil society groups and trade partners, as such laws have been used broadly to silence and punish dissidents in China. However, the authorities say it has restored stability and peace to the city after mass protests in 2019.
From stability to prosperity
“Hong Kong has become a national security city,” the surveyor said. “But there are other more pressing matters that people are actually concerned about, like housing and the economy. There’s no way [the government is] happy that the Hang Seng Index is at 15,000 points right now,” he continued, referring to the recent poor performance of the city’s benchmark stock market index.
The government has said the law will create a “safe and stable environment” for business and investment, with Chief Executive John Lee on Tuesday quoting a German business chamber representative as saying that he “was not concerned about any national security laws.”
In a reply to HKFP, the president of the German Chamber of Commerce said its members would respect Hong Kong’s new security law, but also aired concerns about its scope and lack of precise definitions.
The surveyor questioned Lee’s comments that further security legislation would bring economic benefit. “Of course stability would have a positive impact on the economy, but would legislating Article 23 necessarily mean stability for the city? I don’t think there’s an ‘equals’ sign there.”
Local business chambers threw their weight behind the new legislation after the consultation period began on Tuesday, saying in a joint statement the proposed law would provide a solid framework to protect national security and improve the overall business environment.
In the working-class neighbourhood of Sham Shui Po on Wednesday, 83-year-old retiree Wong said the legislation would not affect people like himself.
He said he did not concern himself with national security cases, and had not taken part in the protests over 20 years ago. But he did not see a pressing need for further security laws, either.
“There’s no need [to legislate Article 23],” Wong told HKFP in Cantonese, adding that residents’ did not have any influence the government.
“There’s no use in talking about what we need, our demands won’t work,” said Wong, as he lamented the state of the economy. “Look at all the shops closing down — Hongkongers are going to become beggars!”
A woman surnamed Choi, in her late 40s, said on Tuesday that she found it “ridiculous” the government needed new laws before they could deal with other issues. “I heard on radio that the government was saying they need to set up Article 23 before they can get things done – I laughed out loud when I heard that!” she told HKFP, speaking Cantonese.
The new laws were a sign for her not to speak out against the authorities, she said, adding that the authorities had “twisted” the narrative in claiming there was a consensus on the need to pass local national security laws.
“Don’t speak up. Don’t say anything, don’t post anything,” she said of the atmosphere for debate. “The government can accuse you of endangering national security if you say you’re dissatisfied with it.”
“[The government] is going to add the new law anyway, and even if you don’t use Article 23 you can use other laws,” she said.
Democratic Party chairman Lo Kin-hei said on Tuesday the government should strike a balance between protecting freedom of speech and safeguarding national security, adding that the definitions of state secrets and national security matters under the new legislation were core questions that needed answering.
Vague scope
One woman who spoke to HKFP on Wednesday, also on condition of anonymity, said she thought the government had its reasons for enacting legislation under Article 23, though she was concerned the law would be vaguely defined.
“The problem is we don’t know what we don’t know… it could be anything,” said the 52-year-old health coach, who has lived in Hong Kong for 13 years. “A lot of my friends have left… It’s too vague, so I don’t really know what I need to do or [not] do.”
According to the public consultation document, the new legislation will cover five offences: treason, insurrection, theft of state secrets and espionage, sabotage endangering national security, and external interference.
It stops short of providing examples such as what constitutes an “external intelligence organisation,” or definitions of what might be “legitimate lobbying work” or a “genuine criticism” of government policy – both supposedly excluded from the scope of the legislation.
The health coach said she thought the government was, to an extent, justified in establishing laws to end what she called “destructive” protests that broke out in 2019 over a later-axed extradition bill.
The demonstrations escalated into sometimes violent displays of dissent against police behaviour, amid calls for democracy and anger over Beijing’s encroachment.
While she was sympathetic with the cause of the protesters, she said the storming of the legislature in July 2019 created “animosity” in society, and the government “had to put a stop” to property damage and violence.
But Article 23, she thought, would further widen divisions both internationally and within the city.
“Every coin has two sides,” she said. “But maybe [the government] should focus on the root cause of things, as opposed to just throwing a blanket over it.”
Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team
