After four months of successful social distancing and lockdown measures, Hong Kong has been an outlier in responses to the Covid-19 pandemic. With a sense of palpable optimism, the city has begun to reopen its schools and begin the process of returning to some sense of normality. However, for Hong Kong, ‘normality’ is likely to mean a return to uncertainty, disruption, and quite possibly violence.
Memories of a contentious Legislative Council meeting which saw politicians sprinting through the council chambers to physically take control of seats before the building’s security had to physically remove some members remain fresh. The announcement of a controversial national security bill in Beijing has also flared tensions, which culminated in a protest on the 24th of May with the familiar sounds of chanting and the smell of tear gas.
While the situation in Hong Kong has ebbed and flowed since the first signs of the Covid-19 outbreak, this recent flare-up can be attributed to the announcement of a controversial national security bill in Beijing. At the time of writing, the details surrounding the proposed law are still shrouded in secrecy, but what is known has worried many in Hong Kong. So far, the bill being discussed in Beijing is focused on curbing what the central government has called ‘foreign interference’ in the SAR. As the legislative body of the National People’s Congress acts largely as a rubber stamp for party legislation, if the bill is put before the legislature it will inevitably become law. What this will actually entail is up for interpretation, and there is a debate from both sides as to how this will materially impact life in Hong Kong.
While you’re here,
Why not take a moment to subscribe to The International’s free monthly newsletter? It takes seconds to sign up, and you’ll stay up to date with the stories shaping our world at a pace that won’t overwhelm.
Proponents of the bill have pointed out that according to Article 23 of the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s mini-constitution, the Hong Kong government is required to pass its own national security legislation. In 2003, the government did try to pass legislation that resembled what Beijing hopes to pass itself. But this attempt was halted by mass protests which led to the legislation being withdrawn.
The bill’s supporters point out that its aim is not to curb civil liberties, but is instead focused on subversion, secession, terrorism and the interference of foreign agents. As Hong Kong is still part of Chinese sovereign territory, albeit with great autonomy, foreign policy and national security do fall under the mainland’s authority. But opponents of the bill fear that it will stretch too far into Hong Kong’s public life.
Most concerning to these individuals is the implication that the enforcement of the bill would fall upon mainland officials operating within Hong Kong. While the specifics of this have not yet been revealed, this would be a different approach to the ‘one country, two systems’ than what has been the prevailing norm since the handover in 1997. Some worry that this signals an end to Beijing’s relatively hands-off approach to Hong Kong’s governance, and a shift to a more tightly managed autonomy.
Activists in Hong Kong also worry that the security bill will be used to stifle any political movements or events that don’t tow the party line. In particular, the yearly Tiananmen Square memorial appears to be in jeopardy. This memorial is the only one of its kind in China and has long been used by pro-democracy organisers to advocate for government reform in both the territory, as well as in the mainland.
With the addition of new laws regarding seditious language into Hong Kong, these events could potentially be cancelled for the foreseeable future.
While the full impact of the national security legislation will not be made evident until it is passed and implemented, the immediate response has reignited the nearly year-long conflict that has consumed Hong Kong. Any hope that tensions had cooled or that the relationship between the police and the protestors would be peaceful have since evaporated. As details of the new laws emerge, Hong Kongers are preparing for another year of strain and city-wide disruption.
Whether or not there is an end-game or way out of this political turmoil is yet to be seen. But if this new law is indeed passed, it signals a new chapter in which the central government looks to further assert its position in the territory, regardless of the implications on Hong Kong’s internal politics.
Colin McGinness is The International’s foreign affairs editor.