Since the National Security Law for Hong Kong (NSL) came into effect three years ago, the “hard confrontation” waged by anti-China forces, in the form of visible, massive, and recurrent campaigns, has largely vanished, but “soft resistance” is still palpable in Hong Kong. It is, therefore, necessary for the special administrative region authorities to continue to crack down on latent subversives by leveraging the power of the NSL.
Some individuals, however, have expressed concerns about an overemphasis on national security, suggesting it may cause anxiety among the public. They took issue with the use of the term “soft resistance”, claiming it may deter people from exercising their freedom of expression and thus undermine social harmony and unity if government officials keep chanting the term. Such an argument sounds reasonable.
But those who came up with this argument were evidently oblivious to the context in which central government and special administrative region officials spoke of “soft resistance”, and hence have failed to recognize that “hard confrontation” and “soft resistance” are of the same nature. Though conducted in different forms, both are against the Constitution, the Basic Law, and the NSL. While “hard confrontation” involves utterly illegal activities such as street violence, maneuvers to paralyze the legislature, and collusion with foreign forces to endanger national security and undermine Hong Kong’s well-being, “soft resistance” is also intended to obstruct law enforcement or the implementation of government policies in a more covert way.
For instance, as a constitutional document underpinning Hong Kong’s political institutions, the Basic Law must be accurately and fully implemented. But there are still people making every effort to block national security legislation under Article 23 of the Basic Law, which is a constitutional responsibility Hong Kong must fulfill. This is “soft resistance” at work. Some have sought to justify their opposition to Article 23 legislation by citing “freedom of speech”. But the right to freedom of speech enshrined in the Basic Law definitely does not include any freedom to resist observance of the Basic Law.
There are also some people who have questioned the high-profile promotion of national security in Hong Kong, citing the need to strike a balance between safeguarding national security and taking care of the economy, people’s livelihoods and public sentiment, as well as the need to avoid giving people outside Hong Kong the impression that the SAR is a “politicized city”. It, however, beggars belief that promoting national security will come at the expense of the economy, people’s livelihoods and public sentiment.
If such an argument made sense, Hong Kong would have been in a state of stability and harmony before the implementation of the NSL. The truth, however, speaks otherwise. The 79-day Occupy Central movement in 2014 cost Hong Kong more than HK$10 billion ($1.28 billion) in economic losses; the Mong Kok riot in 2016 put Hong Kong under the global spotlight; and the seven-month long anti-extradition turmoil in 2019 left Hong Kong in tatters.
The absence of national security laws allowed anti-China subversives to engage in unbridled advocacy of separatism and hostility against the central government. Not only did social confrontation reach its climax but also opposition lawmakers went all-out to debase the central government and the SAR administration. That was a time when Hong Kong was a “politicized city” and politics was in command.
Hong Kong is part of China. The Communist Party of China (CPC) is not only the ruling party but also the inventor, implementer and defender of “one country, two systems”. Without the CPC, neither “one country, two systems” nor the HKSAR would have come into existence. Aside from the absurdity of what the subversives were advocating, the fact that separatism advocacy had persisted for over years was an anomaly.
Although peace and order have been restored in Hong Kong, potential crises can still emerge. When SAR government officials and members of the Legislative Council have reiterated the importance of national security on different occasions, it has essentially been as a well-intentioned reminder as well as a way to fulfill their responsibility. Besides, there is no reason not to discuss an issue of national importance openly. Just as Chinese citizens traveling abroad must abide by the national security laws of the host countries, foreign visitors to Hong Kong must also observe the NSL. The assertion that the NSL and its high-profile promotion will deter foreign investors from coming to Hong Kong is a crude hatchet job.
In his opening speech on National Security Education Day on April 15, Xia Baolong, who leads the Hong Kong and Macao Work Office under the Communist Party of China Central Committee, warned against the resurgence of street violence, “soft resistance” maneuvers aimed at triggering anti-establishment sentiment and chaos, and anti-China activities carried out overseas that could have a rippling effect on the city. Xia specifically mentioned that subversive activities carried out in the guise of human rights, freedom, democracy, and people’s livelihoods are fundamentally deceptive and must not be taken lightly. In retrospect, Xia’s comments have proved to be incisive and forward-looking.
Besides, Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu and his administration have devoted their attention to economic development and improving people’s livelihoods. When Hong Kong resumed quarantine-free travel with the Chinese mainland this year, the government made some significant moves in these two areas, achieving favorable results. Both the safeguarding of national security and the pursuit of economic development and improvements in people’s livelihoods are of equal importance and should be appropriately handled at the same time.
The author is vice-chairman of the Committee on Liaison with Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan and Overseas Chinese of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference and chairman of the Hong Kong New Era Development Thinktank. The views do not necessarily reflect those of Bauhinia Magazine.
Since the National Security Law for Hong Kong (NSL) came into effect three years ago, the “hard confrontation” waged by anti-China forces, in the form of visible, massive, and recurrent campaigns, has largely vanished, but “soft resistance” is still palpable in Hong Kong. It is, therefore, necessary for the special administrative region authorities to continue to crack down on latent subversives by leveraging the power of the NSL.
Some individuals, however, have expressed concerns about an overemphasis on national security, suggesting it may cause anxiety among the public. They took issue with the use of the term “soft resistance”, claiming it may deter people from exercising their freedom of expression and thus undermine social harmony and unity if government officials keep chanting the term. Such an argument sounds reasonable.
But those who came up with this argument were evidently oblivious to the context in which central government and special administrative region officials spoke of “soft resistance”, and hence have failed to recognize that “hard confrontation” and “soft resistance” are of the same nature. Though conducted in different forms, both are against the Constitution, the Basic Law, and the NSL. While “hard confrontation” involves utterly illegal activities such as street violence, maneuvers to paralyze the legislature, and collusion with foreign forces to endanger national security and undermine Hong Kong’s well-being, “soft resistance” is also intended to obstruct law enforcement or the implementation of government policies in a more covert way.
For instance, as a constitutional document underpinning Hong Kong’s political institutions, the Basic Law must be accurately and fully implemented. But there are still people making every effort to block national security legislation under Article 23 of the Basic Law, which is a constitutional responsibility Hong Kong must fulfill. This is “soft resistance” at work. Some have sought to justify their opposition to Article 23 legislation by citing “freedom of speech”. But the right to freedom of speech enshrined in the Basic Law definitely does not include any freedom to resist observance of the Basic Law.
There are also some people who have questioned the high-profile promotion of national security in Hong Kong, citing the need to strike a balance between safeguarding national security and taking care of the economy, people’s livelihoods and public sentiment, as well as the need to avoid giving people outside Hong Kong the impression that the SAR is a “politicized city”. It, however, beggars belief that promoting national security will come at the expense of the economy, people’s livelihoods and public sentiment.
If such an argument made sense, Hong Kong would have been in a state of stability and harmony before the implementation of the NSL. The truth, however, speaks otherwise. The 79-day Occupy Central movement in 2014 cost Hong Kong more than HK$10 billion ($1.28 billion) in economic losses; the Mong Kok riot in 2016 put Hong Kong under the global spotlight; and the seven-month long anti-extradition turmoil in 2019 left Hong Kong in tatters.
The absence of national security laws allowed anti-China subversives to engage in unbridled advocacy of separatism and hostility against the central government. Not only did social confrontation reach its climax but also opposition lawmakers went all-out to debase the central government and the SAR administration. That was a time when Hong Kong was a “politicized city” and politics was in command.
Hong Kong is part of China. The Communist Party of China (CPC) is not only the ruling party but also the inventor, implementer and defender of “one country, two systems”. Without the CPC, neither “one country, two systems” nor the HKSAR would have come into existence. Aside from the absurdity of what the subversives were advocating, the fact that separatism advocacy had persisted for over years was an anomaly.
Although peace and order have been restored in Hong Kong, potential crises can still emerge. When SAR government officials and members of the Legislative Council have reiterated the importance of national security on different occasions, it has essentially been as a well-intentioned reminder as well as a way to fulfill their responsibility. Besides, there is no reason not to discuss an issue of national importance openly. Just as Chinese citizens traveling abroad must abide by the national security laws of the host countries, foreign visitors to Hong Kong must also observe the NSL. The assertion that the NSL and its high-profile promotion will deter foreign investors from coming to Hong Kong is a crude hatchet job.
In his opening speech on National Security Education Day on April 15, Xia Baolong, who leads the Hong Kong and Macao Work Office under the Communist Party of China Central Committee, warned against the resurgence of street violence, “soft resistance” maneuvers aimed at triggering anti-establishment sentiment and chaos, and anti-China activities carried out overseas that could have a rippling effect on the city. Xia specifically mentioned that subversive activities carried out in the guise of human rights, freedom, democracy, and people’s livelihoods are fundamentally deceptive and must not be taken lightly. In retrospect, Xia’s comments have proved to be incisive and forward-looking.
Besides, Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu and his administration have devoted their attention to economic development and improving people’s livelihoods. When Hong Kong resumed quarantine-free travel with the Chinese mainland this year, the government made some significant moves in these two areas, achieving favorable results. Both the safeguarding of national security and the pursuit of economic development and improvements in people’s livelihoods are of equal importance and should be appropriately handled at the same time.
The author is vice-chairman of the Committee on Liaison with Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan and Overseas Chinese of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference and chairman of the Hong Kong New Era Development Thinktank. The views do not necessarily reflect those of Bauhinia Magazine.
