A special LegCo session for the second reading of the Article 23 bill.
SCMP has an ‘exclusive’ on why the bill’s consultation and legislative procedures have that ‘blink and you missed it’ feel…
Insiders said for Hong Kong authorities, a swift enactment of the bill was a calculated strategy to catch foreign powers off guard and thereby minimise the potential impact and duration of any punitive actions or smear campaigns against the city.
A decision to get the bill out of the way quickly was made to allow the government to address Hong Kong’s economic woes and jump-start recovery after the Covid-19 pandemic, they said.
So which was it? To get it done before hostile foreign forces could complicate things? Or to enable us to ‘move forward’ and ‘focus on the economy’?
…[Vice-Premier Ding Xuexiang] and Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office director Xia Baolong met delegates on several occasions during the two sessions. Their message was clear: speedy legislation would allow the city to concentrate on developing the economy.
…The “surprise element” to the fast-tracking of the bill was important, according to a pro-Beijing heavyweight, who said the tactic would catch foreign powers unprepared. Any decision to enact sanctions, for example, would take time to push through given their own countries’ packed agenda.
The 15 lawmakers sitting on the bills committee privately mocked themselves as “martyrs”, the politician said, referring to their “readiness” to face sanctions or other restrictions imposed by Western governments.
The ‘focus on the economy’ trope has been used by every post-1997 administration to try to divert attention from political controversy. The irony was that the controversies were rooted in public discontent over issues (typically to do with democratic reform) that could potentially have led to major improvements in government economic policy – thus obviating the need for the constant ‘we must focus’ thing. To put it another way, Article 23 is a hot potatonot least because of fears it could have a negative impact on the economy. (See also Mainland officials’ traditional mantra about Hong Kong being ‘an economic city, not a political city’.)
The idea that Beijing wanted to pre-empt foreign pressure sounds far more plausible. The whole ‘national security’ fever is ultimately about perceived threats from foreign influences.
But a simpler explanation would simply be that rushing Article 23 through shows – indeed just reflects – clearly who is in charge. The consultative and legislative procedures are formalities. But then…
…Fast-tracking without thorough scrutiny could cause residents to question the role of the legislature, said John Burns, honorary professor at the department of politics and public administration at HKU.
He said lawmakers did not sufficiently address concerns about the vague key terms of the bill. Instead, the focus centred on advocating harsher treatment for residents “potentially ensnared in the national security web”, he said.
Burns said residents might legitimately ask: “What, then, is the role of Legco overhauled by Beijing?”
The central government has implemented changes to Hong Kong’s political system to ensure only “patriots” hold office.
“Legco represents a narrow range of ‘official patriot’ opinion,” he said. “This is a dangerous position because the government needs broad support to govern effectively.”
The SCMP tries to conclude with a positive note…
…The passing of the law could mean the start of a real test of Hong Kong’s wisdom. Will plugging the security “loophole” propel the city towards economic prosperity, while preserving its freedoms and liberties, as repeatedly promised by the city’s leaders?
Business tycoon Allan Zeman said he agreed wholeheartedly with the assertion.