Rumor has it that members of the traditional opposition camp are divided on their political participation in Hong Kong after the implementation of the National Security Law for Hong Kong and a revamped electoral system in the special administrative region.
Many young members of the camp believe they should remain active in the political arena or risk being marginalized, whereas some hard-liners favor a complete opt-out, arguing that there is no room for opposition in the political establishment. To set the record straight, it must be noted that the National Security Law and the revamped electoral system were implemented to keep the subversive forces at bay; it in no way targets the traditional opposition parties and their members. As long as they stick to the bottom line set up under the “one country, two systems” framework, their political function remains intact.
“One country, two systems” is not meant to wipe out the traditional opposition camp, which in fact has played an active role since the reunification. However, they allowed themselves to be hijacked by the subversives and insurrectionists in recent years; became increasingly radical; repeatedly challenged the bottom line set up under the “one country, two systems” principle; and undermined the constitutional order governing Hong Kong.
Their blatant incitement and abetment of violence during the 2019 riots attested to the fact that they had gone far astray. During the riots, a prominent figure from the camp once openly declared that “violence may sometimes be the solution to problems”, whereas some members of the camp assisted the escape of rioters who perpetrated street violence. Given that the rioters they supported had been promoting Hong Kong independence, they were in effect assisting the campaign to overthrow the existing political regime in the SAR. They themselves have become saboteurs, departing from their role as traditional opposition parties.
Aside from inciting and supporting violence, members of the opposition camp were also involved in efforts intended to paralyze the SAR’s governance. When rioters raided the Legislative Council Complex on July 1, 2019, an opposition lawmaker was seen guiding their way into the building. Their storming and looting of the chamber led to the paralysis of the legislature for half a year. Meanwhile, some opposition lawmakers repeatedly abused their powers and made every effort to block government bills with jaw-dropping filibustering tactics. Some of them even openly admitted their attempts to paralyze policymaking and make life miserable for the government. Such admissions revealed an intention of sabotaging the organs of power.
Some opposition figures even colluded with anti-China foreign forces in advancing their agenda. When the anti-extradition-bill movement raged, several opposition legislators connived with China-bashers in the West; they called for and facilitated foreign sanctions on central government and Hong Kong officials. These collaborators, by relegating themselves to be the minions of Western Sinophobes, have, in effect, renounced their Chinese roots and abandoned the morality and principles that lawmakers should abide by. Worse still, they have betrayed their own country and hometown by colluding with the foreign forces that are trying to contain China’s rise.
Those opposition figures who are hellbent on challenging the bottom line of “one country, two systems” and undermining the constitutional order under the nation’s Constitution and the Basic Law definitely have no place in Hong Kong’s political establishment. The traditional opposition camp must return to the right path if they wish to remain relevant in Hong Kong’s socioeconomic and political development.
Members of the traditional opposition camp can disagree on how the city’s affairs should be handled, but they can never disparage the socialist system implemented on the Chinese mainland, nor can they challenge the “one country” bottom line or the central government’s overall jurisdiction over Hong Kong, which is stipulated in both the nation’s Constitution and the Basic Law. The central government’s overall jurisdiction over Hong Kong is nonnegotiable.
People who have an ax to grind have left no stone unturned to besmirch the National Security Law and the revamped electoral system, claiming the authorities are cracking down on opposition voices. But nothing could be further from the truth. As a matter of fact, people can always criticize the SAR government. For instance, it has been heavily criticized for failing to contain the omicron outbreak, yet not a single critic has been retaliated against. But instigation or provocative statements aimed at subverting the government do not fall into the boundaries of acceptable criticism.
As an open and modern metropolis, Hong Kong does not restrict members of the traditional opposition camp from having normal exchanges with foreign politicians. Only those who flout the National Security Law by colluding with foreign powers to subvert the central government or harm Hong Kong will be dealt with according to the law.
The traditional opposition camp is not monolithic: Some of them are actually patriotic and were merely hijacked by their radical peers. It’s time for them to break with those radicals and jump off their chariot.
The only way out for them is to become the loyal opposition that respects the Constitution and the Basic Law and monitors the SAR government with the objective of ensuring sound policymaking through constructive criticism. A loyal opposition observes three basic rules: Be constructive rather than destructive in any effort it makes; settle differences through dialogue rather than confrontation; and never operate outside the boundaries of the law. In short, the loyal opposition should always have Hong Kong’s best interests at heart, and under no circumstances should its members collude with external forces to harm national and Hong Kong interests.
Xia Baolong, director of the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council, has previously stressed that “patriots governing Hong Kong” does not mean “monophonic”. This principle “does allow the greatest extent of tolerance and diversity” on the premise that all participants work for the interests of both the nation and Hong Kong, explained Xia, who is also a vice-chairman of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, the nation’s top advisory body. Members of the traditional opposition camp should have no difficulty understanding Xia’s simple messages.
The author is a Hong Kong member of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference and chairman of the Hong Kong New Era Development Thinktank.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.