Hong Kong lawmakers on Tuesday last week passed an amendment to Article 23 of the Basic Law, which grants the government more power to quash dissent. The new national security legislation is the latest step in a sweeping political crackdown triggered by pro-democracy protests in 2019.
When Hong Kong was handed over to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) by the UK in 1997, it was done according to the “one country, two systems” principle, which was supposed to protect the territory’s autonomy. Article 23 at that time stated that Hong Kong “shall prohibit by law any act that damages the national unity or subverts the Central People’s Government.”
A previous attempt to amend Article 23 in 2003 was scrapped following peaceful protests, with more than 500,000 people marching on the streets.
This time, after Beijing imposed a National Security Law Beijing in 2020, which largely silenced opposition voices in the territory, the Hong Kong Legislative Council, packed with Beijing loyalists following an electoral overhaul, took only 11 days to complete an amendment to Article 23, from unveiling the bill on March 8 to unanimously passing the law on Tuesday last week. It took effect on Saturday.
Article 23 now states that Hong Kong “shall enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the PRC government, or theft of state secrets, to prohibit foreign political organisations or bodies from conducting political activities in the Region, and to prohibit political organisations or bodies of the Region from establishing ties with foreign political organisations or bodies.”
The new law has aroused concerns over the vagueness of its language. It massively extended the HK authorities’ power to expand the scope of national security and threatened stringent penalties for actions authorities considered threats to security, with the most severe for life imprisonment and lesser offenses could lead to 10 to 20 years in jail.
The legislation allows for closed-door trials and grants the police rights to detain suspects for 16 days without charge. Beijing has also implemented regulations that mean some cases could be tried in mainland China.
Hong Kong Secretary for Justice Paul Lam (林定國) has warned that a person might commit an offense if they repost online critical statements issued by foreign nations and people overseas, depending on their “intention and purpose.”
Hong Kong Secretary for Security Chris Tang (鄧炳強) warned that “if you breached the law, I will definitely find evidence against you.”
Since the implementation of Beijing’s National Security Law, nearly 300 people have been arrested, with dozens prosecuted for sedition, mostly for online posts critical of the authorities. Numerous pro-democracy media outlets have been shut down. Airport data show that an estimated 530,000 residents have left the territory and not returned.
The territory, which had been third on the Human Freedom Index, had plummeted to 46th place by last year. Its reputation as an international financial center has gone, losing its No. 1 ranking in the Economic Freedom of the World report. Its benchmark Hang Seng index has lost more than 40 percent in the past three years, and property sales have fallen to the lowest level in three decades.
The new legislation has eroded Hong Kong’s civil liberties and the autonomy that Beijing promised to preserve for at least 50 years. British Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs David Cameron said it is “a clear breach of the agreement the UK struck with China for the handover” and “a demonstration of China breaking its international commitments.”
In Taipei, the government has urged people to avoid traveling to the territory, as the law gives Hong Kong authorities broad powers to imprison foreigners.
The law should be a warning that Beijing’s “one country, two systems” proposal for unification would eventually become “one China” rule, sacrificing the autonomy and freedoms that Taiwanese enjoy.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath