The reunification of Hong Kong with China on July 1, 1997, called for enthusiastic celebrations. Our return to China was eagerly anticipated, and a festive atmosphere permeated the city on the eve of the reunification.
In the early years after the reunification, a few lone demonstrators chose to chant slogans at the flag-raising ceremony on July 1. Nothing untoward happened, and Hong Kong carried on as one of the most open and liberal cities in the world.
Repeated challenges of the central government's authority, culminating in the exceptionally violent riots in 2019 and a scheme hatched by the "pan-democrats" to force the resignation of the chief executive after they had seized 35-plus seats in the Legislative Council, compelled the central authorities to adopt a slew of measures to counter threats to national security and to ensure that patriots will govern Hong Kong. A new national security law, enacted by the National People's Congress Standing Committee, entered into force on June 30, 2020. Legislation implementing the NPCSC's amendments to Annexes I and II of the Basic Law concerning the methods of electing the chief executive and the LegCo was enacted by the LegCo on May 27, 2021.
ALSO READ: Badly needed education reform must continue
Some in our city have become disillusioned about our future because of these new measures. They complain that Hong Kong has changed, that freedom is being suppressed and Hong Kong has lost the chance to become a democracy.
My message to all these doubters is that despite the "50 years no change" promise, Hong Kong cannot stand still but must continuously adapt and change to keep abreast of the times.
Hong Kong's constitutional status has changed on its return to China. Its political system has changed consequent on the introduction of universal suffrage in forming District Councils and the LegCo. The economic ascent of the Chinese mainland and the digital revolution have changed dramatically Hong Kong's competitive environment. They have led to the decline of some of Hong Kong's most vaunted industries (textiles and clothing manufacturing, the container port business, and the film industry, just to name a few), and the catapulting of Hong Kong into a global financial center.
Clinging to the past and insisting that Hong Kong remains unchanged from the pre-1997 era is unrealistic and not an option.
For those who lament the apparent diminution of individual rights and freedom, and fading hopes for democracy, note that many of the rights and freedoms cherished by Hong Kong people are not absolute under international conventions. Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights allows state parties to derogate from their obligations "in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation". Article 19 says the freedom of expression "carries with it special duties and responsibilities", and "may therefore be subject to certain restrictions" for "respect of the rights or reputation of others" and for "the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals".
Hong Kong is a latecomer in modernizing national security legislation. Many democratic countries have far more stringent and sweeping national security legislation. Since Sept 11, 2001, Australia has enacted over 75 statutes to deal with terrorism. In recent years, it has enacted new laws on espionage and foreign interference.
By virtue of its unique history and the confluence of Chinese and Western cultures in our city, Hong Kong is a unique society enjoying a unique arrangement offered by the central authorities under the "one country, two systems" formula
We already have on our statute books some national security legislation and laws regulating public order, which we inherited from the British. Very little has been done to tighten them. For those who look to Britain as the land of unfettered rights and freedoms, note that the United Kingdom Parliament is in the final stages of enacting "The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill 2021", which gives the police new powers to criminalize protests, even if only one person is involved, if the protest is deemed to cause a "public nuisance".
The UK government is also undertaking a two-month consultation on new laws to counter state threats, reform its official secrets act, and introduce a system for "foreign influence registration".
The United States has, of course, an even wider panoply of laws to counter terrorism and enhance state security. One of the most famous statutes is the USA Patriot Act, enacted after Sept 11, 2001. This act substantially expands the federal government's surveillance programs, and acquires new powers to track and seize money used by organizations connected to terrorism.
As for democracy, people have been mesmerized by the mantra that democracy represents government "of the people, by the people, for the people" (US president Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, November 1863). This noble-sounding promise, sadly, is no longer true (not sure if it has ever been). Today, in the world's most powerful democracy, the US, candidates need billions of dollars to sustain their campaigns. The party machinery decides who gets nominated and elected. The people's choice is subject to the control of the party, and "government by the people" is increasingly becoming a tantalizing myth.
The democratic system has long been the envy of many developing countries because it has brought the West long periods of technological progress, prosperity and stability. The meteoric rise of China as the world's second-largest economy, and the ability of the Communist Party of China to modernize China and lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, have shattered the myth that democracy is the only system that can improve the people's livelihood and deliver what the people want.
In Hong Kong, democracy was ushered in by the British rulers very late in their rule, only when they knew that they had to return Hong Kong to China after 1997. The departing British rulers tried to remake Hong Kong in the image of its parliamentary system without China's agreement, and, in the process, caused a major rupture of the otherwise seamless transitional arrangements. With much political skill and cunning, they lulled many Hong Kong people into having a democracy dream. But the democratic experiment in the past 24 years has only served to foment chaos and dysfunction in the legislature, antipathy against our motherland, and polarization and divisiveness in many parts of our society. A system that puts Hong Kong at loggerheads with its motherland cannot be in the interest of the Hong Kong people.
READ MORE: China has every right to set its own house in order
By virtue of its unique history and the confluence of Chinese and Western cultures in our city, Hong Kong is a unique society enjoying a unique arrangement offered by the central authorities under the "one country, two systems" formula. It is in our interest to chart our own path, develop our own systems in accordance with the constitutional and political realities underlying our city, and with the backing of our country. Hong Kong people, especially the younger ones, should know that however high-sounding the promises of the democracy promoters of Western countries, when things go wrong – when our economy is in crisis – they will not lend a helping hand. Only our motherland will take care of us in times of need, as it has many times in the past. Let us make full use of the decisive measures taken by the central authorities to put Hong Kong back on the proper track to welcome a new phase of development under "one country, two systems". Let us cast off our doubts, and work together for a brighter future.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.