China’s Red Line on Hong Kong Signals Greater Tensions Ahead

(Bloomberg) -- Hong Kong was still digesting China’s ouster of two pro-independence lawmakers Monday when the city’s leader raised the prospect of an even more controversial move: the revival of a long-dormant national security law.

The sweeping legislation, which would outlaw treason, sedition and other national threats, has been on hold since half a million people flooded the streets in opposition in 2003. Hong Kong Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying said that the emergence of a local independence movement demonstrated a need to address the matter. Previously he’s said it wasn’t urgent.

“We have not seen anyone advocating independence in the past, but now we see it,” Leung told reporters. “This indeed deserves our attention.”

While Leung gave no timetable or details for reintroducing the bill, the suggestion alone showed the potential fallout from China’s decision to draw a red line against the advocacy of independence -- one of the biggest interventions since the former British colony’s return in 1997. An attempt to pass the security legislation risks hardening views between Leung’s Beijing-backed government and pro-democracy camps.

To read more about Hong Kong’s fight for greater democracy, click here

Article 23 of the Basic Law -- a “mini-constitution’ negotiated in consultation with the British -- requires Hong Kong to “enact laws on its own” to protect national security. Besides secession and subversion, the section also cites theft of state secrets and activities of foreign political organizations as areas requiring legislation. No such laws have been implemented, although several colonial-era provisions referring to the “Crown” and “Her Majesty” remain on the books.

“The radicalized opposition has given Beijing plenty of excuse to justify tighter control,” said Jason Y. Ng, a lawyer who wrote “Umbrellas in Bloom,” a chronicle of the mass Occupy protests in 2014. “The reintroduction of Article 23 is a perfect example of this vicious circle of control and resistance.”

Both sides seemed “willing to raise the stakes I suppose at the expense of the city at large,” Ng said.

China’s top legislative body on Monday issued a rare interpretation of Hong Kong law, saying those who voice separatist views can’t hold public office. The ruling effectively blocked two elected “localists” -- Sixtus “Baggio” Leung, 30, and Yau Wai-ching, 25 -- from taking their seats in the legislature.

Thousands of demonstrators gathered outside Hong Kong’s highest court Sunday to protest the expected move. A smaller group later held a standoff with police outside China’s Liaison Office that stretched into the early morning and resulted in four arrests. Local lawyers planned a “silent march” to the court Tuesday to show their concern about China’s intervention.

‘Great Disadvantage’

The decision by the National People’s Congress Standing Committee was only its second unilateral interpretation of local law since Hong Kong’s return under a “one country, two systems” framework that guaranteed a capitalist financial system and independent courts for 50 years. The move upended a court battle over the two localists, who had their oaths voided after insulting China and unfurling banners proclaiming “Hong Kong IS NOT China.”

The interpretation affirmed the Hong Kong government’s argument that advocating independence violates the Basic Law, which declares the city an “inalienable part” of China. It said that officials bear legal responsibility for false oaths or activities that violate that pledge, adding that “no arrangement shall be made for retaking the oath.”

“You can see from all these localist, self-determination and pro-independence movements that it’s a great disadvantage to the central government to be without Article 23,” Zou Pingxue, director of Shenzhen University’s Hong Kong and Macau Basic Law Research Center. “It’s not as simple as political dissent, or freedom of speech that’s protected by the Basic Law. There is no freedom of speech regarding sovereignty issues.”

High Stakes

The security bill proposed in 2002 was criticized by banks, publishers and other businesses that were concerned it would limit their freedom to operate, with lawyers and academics warning that news stories and research reports could be swept up in a ban on the publication of “unauthorized” information. Ultimately, then-Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa decided to drop the proposal. The blow contributed to his resignation two years later.

The stakes are high for Leung, whose own popularity is low. He hasn’t yet said whether he’ll seek a second term in March, when a committee of 1,200 electors meets to select the city’s leader for the next five years. He’ll need support from Beijing, since China loyalists dominate the committee and the Chinese government must approve the winner.

Willy Lam, an adjunct professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, told Radio Television Hong Kong that the localist duo had handed the Chinese government an excuse to assert greater control. China could later decide issue another Basic Law interpretation to strengthen laws against treason, sedition and the theft of state secrets, Lam said.

“We are entering a new period of ‘one country, two systems’ where Beijing, in the name of fighting separatism and ensuring national security, is squeezing Hong Kong tighter,” Lam said. “The political climate has turned.”