A number of my Occasional Readers have asked, “what’s going on?” with the Article 23 law. So, here it is.
I was worried. And wrote that I was.
And now I’ve read the text, of the “Safeguarding National Security Law”, I’m not so worried.
Some points:
- Clarity and simplicity: the text of the Law is clearly written and easy to understand
- No worries about blogging: I was concerned that this blog, here for sixteen years, might breach the NSL. It does not. The relevant Clause is no. 22 and it strikes me as reasonable. At least more so than I’d feared.
- Defence clauses. The NSL has specific clauses stating that that “this” or “that” can be a defence in the case of breaches alleged under the Law. I think is this good.
Of course there are concerns amongst the business community, like what about “receiving State Secrets” and being involved with “External forces”. Those concerns are understandable. And need to be monitored.
But overall consider what companies look for. Stability, clean government, clear laws, freedom of capital movement, rule of law and clean judiciary. All of these Hong Kong retains.
So, no, I don’t think that it’s “the end of Hong Kong”. Or that we are ended as a financial centre. We no longer hear of Chinese officials predicting the imminent victory of Shanghai or Shenzhen over Hong Kong. It’s all Hong Kong, with its common law legal system and free capital movements. They keep on stressing this over and over. They keep stressing that we’ll keep the “one country two systems” model and that we’ll keep the Common Law system. This Beijing says from top to bottom and it’s good for us.
ADDED:
Li Cheng of the Brooking’s Institute says the notion that Hong Kong is “finished” is “ludicrous”. Three main reasons he gives: (1) We are highly cosmopolitan (2) We are on the biggest financial centres in Asia and the world (3) Good education system, with several universities in the top ten of the world.
AND: Foreign companies have prepared themselves for the new law since the National Security Law of 2020, here.
Another thing: I think I’d be more likely to be arrested or fined if in Scotland, Ireland, or even Australia, under their Hate Speech laws. I could be arrested there for saying that there are two sexes and that there is no “gender spectrum”, on the basis of science. Not so in Hong Kong. I’m going to say it here to prove it: “there are, scientifically, only two sexes, male and female”. There is no “gender spectrum”. There.
Also: many posting out that most other countries, including western democracies, have similar national security laws. Alex Lo writes a fun piece pointing out the British National Security Law is more draconian than our new Supplementary Law, and was enacted to not much publicity just three months ago. I wouldn’t make too much of that as they’re operating in democratic systems. Still, it’s a point . As is mine about being caught by Hate Speech laws.
