It was anticipated that Hong Kong’s newly instituted national security law would pass without opposition in the entirely patriotic Legislative Council. The Basic Law, Hong Kong’s semblance of constitution, mandates the development of such legislation. Considering the clampdown on political dissension, free media, and civil organisations in 2020, the law was imminent.
However, the alacrity with which the law was expedited, overseen by Chief Executive John Lee, has been a cause for astonishment. The 181-segment law was examined by legislators within six days, followed by a single day of discussion on proposed changes. They bypassed the conventional 12-day notice period to push through the final stages in a single day, after a mere four-week span available for public viewpoints.
The legislation extends the concept of sedition to situations void of violent instigation and broadens the definition of state secrets, whilst recommending severe penalties for certain violations. Widespread apprehension has been voiced by businesses, associations of journalists and foreign governments over the implications for the remnants of independent journalism and civil sectors in Hong Kong.
Lee put forward the quick implementation of the law on the grounds of the pressing external threats to national security in Hong Kong, arguing that there was no scope for delay. Beijing maintained a more credible stance, revealing that with their obligation towards national security met, legislators can now channel their efforts into bolstering the economy.
Yet, the brisk progression also caught the legislation’s detractors off-balance, especially in the US and Europe. The truncated schedule didn’t allow time to draw up deterrents such as penalty packages, which could have been used as a negotiation tool during the legislation’s discourse.
While sanctions might still materialise and the voting on Tuesday provoked immediate disapproval from both US political factions and international civil liberties campaigners, international governments have exercised restraint. Much of this is attributed to their hesitation to appear meddling in a legislative process created within Hong Kong rather than one directly imposed by Beijing.
However, the hasty enactment of the law could undermine the already questionable validity of the Legislative Council in a territory where pro-democracy candidates were popular until they were prohibited.
During a discussion held on Tuesday, Junius Ho, a legislative representative, expressed his exasperation regarding the poor reception he received whilst briefing a collection of educators on the new law’s details. He recalled, “They were engaged in video games, conversing with each other, and even dozing off as I delivered my lecture”. He further expressed his dissatisfaction with the educators by adding, “When I come to equip the trainers, they’re in their own world – asleep, absorbed in video games or giving me hostile stares.”