Hong Kong lawmakers on Tuesday last week passed an amendment to Article 23 of the Basic Law, which grants the government more power to quash dissent. The new national security legislation is the latest step in a sweeping political crackdown triggered by pro-democracy protests in 2019.
When Hong Kong was handed over to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) by the UK in 1997, it was done according to the “one country, two systems” principle, which was supposed to protect the territory’s autonomy. Article 23 at that time stated that Hong Kong “shall prohibit by law any act that damages the national unity or subverts the Central People’s Government.”
A previous attempt to amend Article 23 in 2003 was scrapped following peaceful protests, with more than 500,000 people marching on the streets.
This time, after Beijing imposed a National Security Law Beijing in 2020, which largely silenced opposition voices in the territory, the Hong Kong Legislative Council, packed with Beijing loyalists following an electoral overhaul, took only 11 days to complete an amendment to Article 23, from unveiling the bill on March 8 to unanimously passing the law on Tuesday last week. It took effect on Saturday.
Article 23 now states that Hong Kong “shall enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the PRC government, or theft of state secrets, to prohibit foreign political organisations or bodies from conducting political activities in the Region, and to prohibit political organisations or bodies of the Region from establishing ties with foreign political organisations or bodies.”
The new law has aroused concerns over the vagueness of its language. It massively extended the HK authorities’ power to expand the scope of national security and threatened stringent penalties for actions authorities considered threats to security, with the most severe for life imprisonment and lesser offenses could lead to 10 to 20 years in jail.
The legislation allows for closed-door trials and grants the police rights to detain suspects for 16 days without charge. Beijing has also implemented regulations that mean some cases could be tried in mainland China.
Hong Kong Secretary for Justice Paul Lam (林定國) has warned that a person might commit an offense if they repost online critical statements issued by foreign nations and people overseas, depending on their “intention and purpose.”
Hong Kong Secretary for Security Chris Tang (鄧炳強) warned that “if you breached the law, I will definitely find evidence against you.”
Since the implementation of Beijing’s National Security Law, nearly 300 people have been arrested, with dozens prosecuted for sedition, mostly for online posts critical of the authorities. Numerous pro-democracy media outlets have been shut down. Airport data show that an estimated 530,000 residents have left the territory and not returned.
The territory, which had been third on the Human Freedom Index, had plummeted to 46th place by last year. Its reputation as an international financial center has gone, losing its No. 1 ranking in the Economic Freedom of the World report. Its benchmark Hang Seng index has lost more than 40 percent in the past three years, and property sales have fallen to the lowest level in three decades.
The new legislation has eroded Hong Kong’s civil liberties and the autonomy that Beijing promised to preserve for at least 50 years. British Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs David Cameron said it is “a clear breach of the agreement the UK struck with China for the handover” and “a demonstration of China breaking its international commitments.”
In Taipei, the government has urged people to avoid traveling to the territory, as the law gives Hong Kong authorities broad powers to imprison foreigners.
The law should be a warning that Beijing’s “one country, two systems” proposal for unification would eventually become “one China” rule, sacrificing the autonomy and freedoms that Taiwanese enjoy.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS