 |
| There we are! 105 in, 45 down.… Mass demos against Article 23 Security Law, 2003. |
I don’t recall analysing the issue very much. Well, TBF, I know I didn’t. It was just a major thing and we went along. Taking part.
I do remember thinking that Regina Ip - the Minister responsible for pushing the legislation to implement a Security Law, as required under Article 23 of the Basic Law - was rather arrogant in doing so. I wonder if she’d listened more whether we might have had a decent Security Law passed. But I doubt it. The mood was not for any Security Law at all, never mind how limited in scope.
In the years since, Regina has softened her image, commenting often on current affairs and I’ve grown to admire her for independent, well-reasoned views.
The government, meantime, has done precisely zero to carry out an obligation under our mini-constitution, the Basic Law. That’s understandable, given that the public reaction would have been the same as what we’ve seen with the anti extradition protests: protests and mass rioting.
The broad masses of the people, meanwhile, have been doing the equivalent of holding their breath, covering their ears and chanting “nyah, nyah, nyah…”. Hoping it would go away.
That’s not turned out well. For while we might think we can get along perfectly well without a Security Law, Beijing does not. And Beijing, like it or not, is the sovereign power. And the Basic Law does require the passing of a Security Law. Those facts are not in dispute.
End result: a Law passed by Beijing and likely stricter (I admit to not having analysed it) than the one we might have passed locally, back in 2003, or since.
Failures all round, as Mike Rowse argues.
BREAKING: Trump announces revoking of our special status, under provisions of HKHRDA. So we get the real-life test of whether this is really bad for us, or just bad for us.
Regina will be speaking soon. She downplays the impact. Thinks we’ll be just fine. Cross fingers.
