National Security Law: this is how it may end

Real Hong Kong News

9 June 2020

Original Cantonese article published on 6 June 2020 by 渾水財經 Channel, a Hong Kong based commentator. English headline by RHKN.

Many Hongkongers criticise Martin Lee for his recent comment in a TV interview, in which he said “National Security Law should be legislated by Hong Kong (legislature)” – contradicting  public sentiment – as Hongkongers have long been opposed to it (e.g. the 500,000 people strong rally in 2003 against Article 23)

Picture: Hong Kong Economic Journal – screen shot of Martin Lee at a TV interview who said that “National Security Law should be legislated by Hong Kong SAR”

In the last few days, China seems to have softened its tone, and the police in Hong Kong have shown their concern at becoming “disposable thugs” – and begun hinting that the National Security Law (NSL) will be “merciful”. Pro-China newspapers even said that the NSL will include a sunset provision: if the HKSAR government legislate Article 23, then the NSL will be removed from Appendix III of the Basic Law. Hong Kong Bar Association came out to provide “constructive suggestions” on the NSL, and then you have Jimmy Lai publicly calling on the US not to revoke Hong Kong’s special status (editor’s note: many Hongkongers subscribe to the “laam chau” idea – see a short explanation in this article:  it may come as a surprise that many Hongkongers’ view on Lai is very different from the western world’s perception of him: Lai supports the notion that China should continue to reign Hong Kong, and he believes that China will allow Hong Kong to enjoy democracy, an ideal that many – especially the younger generations –  see as paradoxical).

I have a prediction that most hope will never materialise:

On the surface, China and the US both refuse to stand down on the subject of Hong Kong, but secretly, both sides have been testing each other’s bottom lines, and secretly negotiating to each take a step back. The US will compromise and allow China to impose the NSL on Hong Kong, but via  political agents or other conduits – for example: people in the pan-democrats circle, – Martin Lee’s aides or foreign legal experts – will take part in formulating the NSL to mitigate the elements that will not be accepted by international community (i.e. things that can impact their interests in Hong Kong). If China agrees, both sides will shake hands – and that will be the end of the story.

At least, when this happens, the “position warfare” between the US and China in Hong Kong will come to an end.

This is not an unimaginable result. What Martin Lee said in the above-mentioned interview does in fact lead many to believe this is how the story will end. Perhaps this is what Lee, one of the “most wanted persons” on the “NSL wanted list”, wishes to happen.

However, this ending would be a tragedy for Hongkongers: those on the NSL “wanted” list will be safe, and continue to enjoy their fame and privilege because they have been labelled as the face of Hong Kong’s fight for democracy. Meanwhile, all focus continues to be on the “35+ game” (the pan-democrats’ proposal to take over 35 seats at the dysfunctional Legislative Council). Young people (protesters and non-protesters), who haven’t been able to flee, face the expensive and biased legal system controlled by the government, and continue to seek a path to refuge. Police brutality and arbitrary arrest continue… We can simply forget about the five demands, as we will lose much more.

Let’s reflect on the history of how the US uses financial means to curb a rising power: in the 80s, for example, Japan’s economy suffered a major blow because of the Plaza Accord.

The key is whether the US has the determination: China is more fortunate than Japan, and in a way cleverer than Japan – because RMB is not a free-floating currency: Otherwise, China’s economy would had been finished long ago if the western world had used the Plaza Accord  strategy on China.