Hong Kong’s New Legislation: What Future Lies Ahead? – Part 1

By Professor Silverio Allocca (DIPLOMATICINFO.COM GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST)

A response to Prof. Valori in the margins of the article “Some reflections on Xianggang (aka Hong Kong). Valori’s opinion” that appeared in le Formiche of March 22, 2024 previews an initial analysis of China’s near future and, consequently, ours as well – When the Chinese Communist Party wanted Hong Kong to remain a very undemocratic British colony

With reference to the article cited in the title by Prof. Valori entitled, precisely, “Some reflections on Xiannnang (aka Hong Kong). Valori’s opinion” , which appeared in le Formiche of March 22, 2024, significantly subtitled with the following unequivocal words “Western misunderstandings about the new legislation regarding the safeguarding of national security in Hong Kong, between history and current events. The opinion of Giancarlo Elia Valori,” and which in the opening verbatim reads “Imperialism in its most horrendous forms-which are colonialism and neo-colonialism-loses its hair but not its vice,” I cannot refrain from pointing out-and further documenting-how the whole thing is configured as a certainly interesting text worthy in no small measure of appearing as an official communiqué of that Chinese Foreign Ministry which I doubt could have drafted one better conceived, articulated and structured also from the propaganda point of view.

Specifically, it should be said that it all stemmed from the criticism that rained down from several quarters concerning China’s new legislation on safeguarding national security in Xianggang, criticism that Prof. Values admirably summed it up by writing “Regarding the new legislation on safeguarding national security in Xianggang, the misunderstandings and controversies of some focus mainly on these points: 1) the legislative process is too fast; 2) the new ordinance is too strict and some provisions are too ambiguous, giving ample room for explanations and thus giving more powers to law enforcement; 3) the law violates human rights principles and may hinder foreign businesses and endanger foreigners living in Xianggang; 4) The law further pushes Xianggang to lose uniqueness and competitiveness in the world, making it a city that is no different from other cities in mainland China,

and in the final stigmatized, after an extensive and articulate foreword, writing with a decisive flair, regarding the points made in 1), 2) and 3):

“Let us respond:

1. If there is the agreement of the members of the Legislative Council, it is not clear why it is too fast; it is ridiculous especially to say so in Italy, where citizens complain about the excessive length of the jurisprudential, procedural and bureaucratic processes.
2. It is not of third parties to judge the severity and merit of another country’s laws, but it is its people who express themselves through representative institutions; and this is affirmed by international law; unless we intervene with humanitarian bombing and sophisticated weapons to change peoples’ minds; for that matter, yes doing so would eliminate law enforcement altogether in Xianggang as desired by the aforementioned.
3. The violation of human rights, the first of which is life, should be demanded of the people of Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki; of the people of Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and those of Africa and other parts of the world, as cannon fodder of the Western war industry.”

It is difficult, for someone like me who has not been 20 years old for a while, not to notice how the whole thing could well figure-and in fact has already made a fine showing on more than one occasion-in apologetic texts of any regime regardless of political color.

Not to mention the lengthy premise that contributes in no small way to the configuration of the entire text, as it has been extended-voluntarily underlining what is useful to underline and deliberately omitting what is more useful to omit-as something that represents anything but a super partes analysis, being so steeped in partisanship as to constitute itself as an implicit confirmation of the merits of the criticism that the recently approved text of the law has unleashed, Moreover, it could be the perfect introductory hat for any sentence of conviction pronounced against those who will be sentenced to trial as guilty even of the mere possession of texts expressing opinions and ideas contrary to those of the Chinese government, or guilty of advocating a process of democratization of the country. .

Personally, I believe that such a way of understanding law is perfectly in line with the choices of any dictatorship and certainly not with what is intended to be presented as the fruit of the legitimate interest in protecting the national security of a civilized country.

That the West’s faults historically have been immense is an incontrovertible fact, but at the same time I would like to point out that should we, by our misfortune, be in the presence of a similar law for “the safeguarding of national security,” an article such as the one from which this de facto examination has taken its cue would be configured not only as liable to censure, but also deserving in its own right of the instruction of criminal proceedings against its author.

Formally speaking, as can be read on page 2 of the interesting publication titled “Legislative Council Brief- Safeguarding National Security Bill – File Ref: SBG/3/101/2024” under Justification, the drafting of a measure inspired by what is stated verbatim here under 1) – “The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (“HKRAS”) has a constitutional duty to safeguard national security. Article 23 of the Basic Law clearly states that the HKRAS shall enact its own laws to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People’s Government or theft of state secrets, to prohibit foreign political organizations or bodies from conducting political activities in the HKRAS and to prohibit political organizations or bodies in the HHRAS from establishing ties with foreign political organizations or bodies”-is unimpeachable from the standpoint of the right of any state to provide for the protection of its sovereignty, quite different is how it intends to provide for it and, more importantly, what the tends to put in place pretextually by invoking that principle.

And in fact, among the many passages of which the text of the “Safeguarding National Security Ordinance” is composed there is one, specifically Division 4 taken from Part 3 -Insurrection, Incitement to Mutiny and Disaffection, and Acts with Seditious Intention, etc., which is exactly right for us in that it textually reads:

Division 4Acts with Seditious Intention etc.

23.Seditious intention

(1)For the purposes of this Division—

1. a person does an act with a seditious intention if the person does the act with one or more of the intentions specified in subsection (2); and
2. an act, word or publication is an act, word or publication that has a seditious intention if the act, word or publication has one or more of the intentions specified in subsection (2).

(2)The intentions are as follows—

1. an intention to bring a Chinese citizen, Hong Kong permanent resident or a person in the HKSAR into hatred, contempt or disaffection against the following system or institution—

1. the fundamental system of the state established by the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China;

1. a state institution under the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China; or

1. the following offices of the Central Authorities in Hong Kong—

1. the Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region;

• the Office for Safeguarding National Security of the Central People’s Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region;

• the Office of the Commissioner of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region; or

• the Hong Kong Garrison of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army;

• an intention to bring a Chinese citizen, Hong Kong permanent resident or a person in the HKSAR into hatred, contempt or disaffection against the constitutional order, executive, legislative or judicial authority of the HKSAR;

• an intention to incite any person to attempt to procure the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of—

1. any matter established in accordance with the law by the Central Authorities in relation to the HKSAR; or

1. any matter established in accordance with the law in the HKSAR;

• an intention to cause hatred or enmity amongst different classes of residents of the HKSAR or amongst residents of different regions of China;

• an intention to incite any other person to do a violent act in the HKSAR;

• an intention to incite any other person to do an act that does not comply with the law of the HKSAR or that does not obey an order issued under the law of the HKSAR.

END OF PART ONE.