Submit Your Work
Civil Liberties
Economy
International Relations
Friday, August 14, 2020

The New National Security Law in China: What it Means for Hong Kong

This article is by
Nikhita Gautam
Nikhita Gautam
East Asia

Share this article
Download as PDF
Cite this Article

Article Contributor(s)

Nikhita Gautam

Article Title

The New National Security Law in China: What it Means for Hong Kong

Publisher

Global Views 360

Publication Date

August 14, 2020

URL

Hong Kong at Night

Hong Kong at Night | Source: Anatoliy Gromov via Unsplash

The city of Hong Kong, which has enjoyed relatively free trading laws from mainland China and has established itself as a major trading centre over the years, may be at risk of capital fleeing due to draconian laws that China seeks to impose on it, curbing its trade and the political freedom it enjoyed.

The problem begins with Beijing's plan to enact national security laws in May 2020 over the whole country, including Hong Kong, which has had an independent judiciary, loose business regulation, low trade barriers and guarantees of freedom of expression until now. The national security law aims to target sedition and terrorist activities. This comes after anti-Beijing protests last year which had cases of extreme violence against the public.

This raises many questions for those doing business because there is a great fear that the definition of national security is so vague and ambiguous that China may accord severe punishment for petty crimes or dissent.

However, the Hong Kong officials have responded by support for the law. The Chief Executive, Carrie Lam, has said that this law addresses problems which the business sector has been “worrying about over the past year.” Leung Chun-ying, a top Chinese advisor, has said that the law does not “hinder foreign investors”, nor “hinder the freedom enjoyed by local residents”.

The fear still abounds, with a significant number of people seeking to flee the city, the largest fall in the local stock market since 2008 after the announcement of the security law and the doubling of the funds deposited in Singaporean banks, which is attributed to the situation in Hong Kong by economists.

Many investment firms have expressed their concerns on tightening of the grip by mainland China on Hong Kong. William Kaye, a longtime investor in China and founder of Pacific Group, the investment firm, has said that “what is just a trickle could become a flood of capital out.”

The US government has also lodged a strong protest with China against the imposition of draconian security law on Hong Kong. It is important to note that the USA has granted special status in trading to Hong Kong which has given some competitive advantages and contributed to the business growth of Hong Kong.

The US had warned China that with the new security law, the special status granted to Hong Kong will be revoked by the USA. As China failed to do so, the USA revoked Hong Kong’s Special Status through an executive order by President Trump on July 14, 2020.

A revocation of its special status would mark “the beginning of the death of Hong Kong as we know it,” Steve Tsang, director of the University of London’s SOAS China Institute, said last year.

Apart from the special status revocation, the same day President Trump also signed an Hong Kong Autonomy Act to impose sanctions on foreign individuals and entities for ‘contributing to the erosion of Hong Kong’s autonomy.’ Under this law, persons responsible for human rights violations in Hong Kong can be subject to sanctions like visa bans and asset freezes.

Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam, has said it’s “totally unacceptable” for foreign legislatures to interfere in Hong Kong’s internal affairs, and that sanctions would only complicate the city’s problems. She also gave reassurance to the investors that Hong Kong adheres to the rule of law and has an independent judiciary.

The Chinese attempt to exert greater control over Hong Kong and the protest by the local people with moral support from the international community has once again put the spotlight on the behaviour of China, as it is trying to establish itself as a global economic and military super power.

The people of Hong Kong have unfortunately become a pawn in the great game of geopolitical power projection. It is still too early to predict whether China will blink first and roll back the draconian law or Hong Kong will end up as collateral damage in China’s quest for a place on the high table of global power players.

Support us to bring the world closer

To keep our content accessible we don't charge anything from our readers and rely on donations to continue working. Your support is critical in keeping Global Views 360 independent and helps us to present a well-rounded world view on different international issues for you. Every contribution, however big or small, is valuable for us to keep on delivering in future as well.

Support Us

Share this article

Read More

February 4, 2021 4:44 PM

Are Black Americans victims of Police Militarization in the US

In the USA, there are reports of police using tear gas, flashbangs, and many other weapons to fight against the riots which are occurring now in over 350 cities against police brutality against the Black Community. There have been many reports on how the police brutality is disproportionate in terms of race; the Black people are thrice as likely to have violence committed on them by the police force than the whites, and the factor is 1.5 for the Hispanics. There is a first-hand account of a person present in the recent protests who talks about the use of batons on demonstrators.

This, however, leads to the question whether it was the militarization of the police force that caused violence towards minority communities. The police militarization was, in the aftermath of the 9/11 US terrorist attack, justified by the policymakers as a necessary tool to prevent the terrorist attacks in the future. This policy decision led to the military grade weapons and military style training regime for the police force. Some of the states in the US partnered with highly militarized police of Israel for training their police force. Such lethal weapons which were provided to the police force  used against terrorists were gradually used by the police force against common civilians on suspicion of minor crimes and the group of protestors.

The civil right groups were voicing concerns for many years about the use of disproportionate force on the Black and Hispanic Americans, which they blamed on the arming of police with lethal weapons. It was the death of Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager, who was shot and killed on Aug. 9, 2014, by Darren Wilson, a white police officer, in Ferguson, Montana, USA that galvanised the public to demand for demilitarization of police force. As a response to public anger against the killing of Michael Brown, President Obama set up a Task Force on 21st Century Policing. This task force, in its report put special emphasis on de-escalating situations, with civilians in training and policies, and reduced funding by the Department of Homeland Security for such weapons. However these recommendations failed to have much effect on solving the issues at hand.

The continued use of such lethal weapons casts the police force as a separate, powerful entity which is to be feared, instead of a friendly cop who is trying to provide security to a citizen in distress. Such equipment serves to distance the police from the people, giving them power, and if left unchecked, entitlement over the rest of the citizens. In many instances the presence of a weapon itself leads to more aggressive behaviour and there have been calls to make the police wear body cams to restrain them from acting with disproportionate lethal force.

The racial profiling and discriminatory actions against the black and other communities that was already practiced by the police forces was now being enforced by more lethal power in the force’s hands. A study by Olugbenga Ajilore shows that counties with more race segregation were more likely to request additional weapons, and counties with an African American/Asian American population are more likely to acquire military equipment. Another report of 2017 shows a direct correlation between the degree of police militarization and the killing of civilians in police action.

It can be reasonably said that the militarization, in some sense, inflated the already existing racial profiling based violent actions of police force.

Read More