As Hong Kong’s pivotal Article 23 security bill takes shape, public discourse surrounding the subject has drawn in city officials like moths to a flame. Talk on a variety of unrelated subjects is now couched in terms of security as lawmakers and administrators make haste to present patriotic credentials.
This random-speak poses a problem. National security will feature as a core value in the revised civil service code. But critical thinking on pressing areas like housing, education, manpower, the environment, trade, tourism, infrastructure, job creation and caring for a greying population cannot be seen to be sidelined.
Hong Kong is part of China, albeit with its own legal structure and freedoms as enshrined in the Basic Law. There is no doubt that a domestic security bill is required to replace or hone archaic colonial laws. Many countries have such laws, with varying degrees of latitude in interpreting and implementing them. And yes, Hong Kong needs to get its head around this.
Still, at this time in the city’s re-emergence from the Covid-19 and protest-linked slowdown, it would be wise to frame discussions in the context of socio-economic safeguards rather than purely law and order. Constant talk of sedition, visa scrutiny and surveillance could undermine both public and investor confidence by creating a sense of unease and uncertainty.
Rapid economic progress is the true guarantor of Hong Kong’s security and it will bring people and investment back as a concrete future unfolds. There must certainly be spirited debate on the security bill but that is a quite separate matter.
The city would be far better served by local officials giving their undivided attention to their own departments and scouring their collective imagination for novel solutions to novel challenges. Hong Kong has long been admired for its can-do spirit and ability to create fixes in impossible circumstances. It needs to dig deep now and tap into its abundant administrative talent.
China’s tremendous economic strides are a matter of pride for many. When Chinese paramount leader Deng Xiaoping borrowed from Hong Kong’s capitalist playbook, no one imagined the phenomenal growth rates – averaging over 9 per cent a year since 1978 – this would drive.
What is often overlooked is that this was based on an unspoken social contract. The wisdom of the Communist Party would never be challenged and the government would in turn ensure a better life for all. At the centre of it all was economics and growth.
This is oddly similar, in outward appearance at least, to how Hong Kong operated under colonial rule. The government got on with the practicalities of running things while the citizenry went about its pursuit of amassing wealth.
Both models employed a parallel track get-rich-quick approach, divorcing governance from the governed, to deliver stellar results. Singapore’s paternalist democracy is another example of party-driven growth where economics has trumped dissent. The trick is in finding the right course for Hong Kong.
Lawmaker and Executive Council convenor Regina Ip attends a lunch on Article 23 legislation at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club in Hong Kong on February 19. Photo: Yik Yeung-man
Gratuitous echo-chamber chatter on “foreign collaboration” and “external forces” muddies the waters. This is where the city’s animated and undoubtedly loyal officials may be inadvertently making missteps. Executive Council convenor Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee, a fervent security champion, has rightly argued for greater clarity on national security terminology seen by some as too broad.
An established entrepôt like Hong Kong is driven by foreign investment. The city is a major conduit for capital inflows. This is all protected by strong precedent-driven common law.
In a globalised world, banks, educational and research institutions, healthcare and insurance companies, aviation, construction titans and many small and medium-sized enterprises are likely to be beholden to international jurisprudence, foreign company regulations and reporting lines. Who then is collaborating with whom or taking instruction from an external entity?
These issues must be resolved in a calm and serious manner that does not sully confidence in Hong Kong or sidetrack its economy.
It is increasingly clear that Hong Kong must chart an independent commercial course while honouring its Basic Law and security commitments, as well as not simply falling in line as just another mainland city. Hong Kong is prized by China as a valuable and unique financial conduit. It is part of China but its strength derives from its differences, especially when it comes to leveraging foreign direct investment and re-establishing trust.
Hong Kong’s true and lasting security lies in a healthy economy that generates wealth, boldly advertising a future where dreams can come true. This is what the city would do best.
Vijay Verghese is a long-time Hong Kong-based journalist and columnist
