This was bound to happen. The signs were there all along that Hong Kong’s semi-autonomy and the way the special administrative region flexed it were vexing to the People’s Republic of China so no one should be surprised at the recent new security law imposed by China that in essence could be used to quell dissent against the Chinese government and reduce Hong Kong’s autonomy.
Hong Kong has been dubbed one of the four Asian Tigers – the other three are Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea – because of its high-growth economy fuelled by industrialisation. Although this small territory of China is mostly infertile it is one of the world’s main trade and financial centres. Last year, its GDP was reported to be US$454.9 billion and its growth rate 3.8 percent. But Hong Kong is also an anomaly that the PRC is seeking to fix.
History tells us that it was over 175 years ago, following the First Opium War, that China was forced to cede Hong Kong island to Britain. Some years later on July 1, 1898, China leased a group of territories and islands to Britain for 99 years. After the two world wars, China began its red shift and became a fully communist country in 1949 under Chairman Mao Zedong. Of course, this is an over-simplified version of the events that led to total communism and a one-party state in the PRC. But there was Hong Kong, geographically and physically part of China, with its British civil government and its capitalist outlook and there was the PRC.
More than ten years before the end of the 99-year lease and in the face of dogged Chinese insistence that Hong Kong was part of the lease, Britain and the PRC held a series of engagements which ended with the signing of a pact laying out the terms under which Hong Kong would revert to Chinese rule. Many residents of Hong Kong, particularly those born there, saw themselves as separate and different from the Chinese on the mainland. Many were anxious and concerned about what a reversion to Chinese sovereignty would entail; how it would change their way of life and what impact it would have on the freedoms they enjoyed.
Under the British, the Hong Kong civil service had become an independent and powerful institution that was often able to successfully challenge and frustrate Beijing. Assurances were given that even though it would be fully part of one-party communist China when the lease ended in 1997, there would be no issue with Hong Kong continuing under its capitalist and quasi-democratic political system for the next 50 years. This formula that was agreed to was termed ‘one country-two systems’.
However, given the political and social reconstruction, for want of a better term, that had swept China after the communist party came to power, there was some amount of wariness among the British and the self-styled ‘Hong Kongers’. It was felt that the formula agreed to by the PRC would not be allowed to stand and there was an attempt at installing democratic reforms that would allow for wider suffrage before the handover. That was a no-go with the PRC and although reforms did eventually make it through the Hong Kong legislature, they were nowhere near what was needed to make its citizens feel secure. Post handover, Beijing installed its handpicked man to rule Hong Kong and when elections were held the next year, he was also a shoo-in.
In retrospect, Hong Kong’s struggles began almost immediately, although on the surface it appeared that not too much was changing and that through protests and the ballot, progress towards full democracy was being made. Unlike on the mainland, the press in Hong Kong, just like in Britain, was still largely free of government censorship. The territory also had quite a reputation for publishing and printing books and international magazines. In addition, Hong Kong is seen as one of the principal centres of the global telecommunications network with its advancements into cutting-edge technology. Global apps such as Facebook, Twitter, and WhatsApp, operated in Hong Kong, but were not available on mainland China owing to restrictions.
All was not well. Hong Kong did not have its own security law, and this allowed the PRC to step into the breach and insert its version effective June 30. Under this law, which among other things criminalises sedition and secession, mainland security agencies can now operate in Hong Kong. Of course, there has been international condemnation and criticism, but it is a done deal. Recognising what is coming, some apps such as Facebook and Twitter, where posts and tweets could be used to establish evidence of sedition, said immediately that they would stop or suspend data review requests from the Hong Kong government.
The ‘one country-two systems’ formula’s shelf life expires in 2047; it appears that the PRC has decided not to wait. But Hong Kong, used to its freedoms, is not going to be submissive to a threat against them. With its new security law China has taken a tiger by the tail, it is neither safe to hold on nor let go.
