中央必须抓紧香港的国家安全法
2020-06-01 15:05阅读：
英裔中国公民 Mike Rowse 在香港48年，在廉政公署工作过6年，又当了几十年公务员。2008年退休。
他今天在南华早报撰文，认为中央干预香港的国家安全法，实属无奈。基本法有明确规定了国家安全法，但是香港历届政府一拖再拖。政府官员们拒绝与反对派谈判，而反对派无理取闹。特别可恨的三人是彭定康、陈方安生和Martin
Lee。你们这帮家伙逼得中央没有选择。全文在下面。
他的观点与前几天英裔香港高级出庭律师Grenville Cross
在南华早报的文章基调一致，认为英美政府也是无理取闹。链接在此。
http://t.cn/A62CnmPp
Hong Kong has no one to blame but itself for Beijing’s intervention
in national security legislation.
Decades of political gridlock, neglect and refusal to compromise
forced the central government’s hand. Local government leaders have
been distant and aloof while opposition figures have failed to
offer serious proposals on the Basic Law directive.
Former undersecretary for the environment Christine Loh Kung-wai
gave an interesting history lesson on an RTHK talk show last week
during a discussion of the proposed national security
legislation.
She reminded listeners she was a member of the Legislative Council
in the 1990s. Before the handover, the council had a draft bill
which “would have
plugged the hole for Article 23”. She called it “a rather liberal
version”. For various reasons, which Loh described as the “wisdom
of the times”, the bill was not pursued.
I had forgotten this chapter. Like most, I have a clearer
recollection of the events of 2003. Then-chief executive Tung
Chee-hwa offered a controversial draft bill. Many amendments that
brought the bill closer to something acceptable were
proposed.
Meanwhile, half a million citizens – then the biggest demonstration
since the handover – marched in opposition. Again, the bill was
dropped, and secretary for security Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee
resigned.
Nothing has happened in the 17 years since. Successive chief
executives said it was the wrong time for Article 23 legislation or
they had other priorities. All this despite the clear directive in
the Basic Law that the onus was on Hong Kong to draft and enact the
law.
As for the central government’s announcement that it would insert
its national security law into Annex III of the Basic Law and apply
it to Hong Kong, the decision has received widespread international
and local criticism.
Former governor Chris Patten has led the overseas critics outside
Washington. Local luminaries include former chief secretary Anson
Chan Fang On-sang and Democratic Party founder Martin Lee Chu-ming.
It would be nice if these three could remind us why the
pre-handover bill was not enacted when the government still
normally commanded a majority in Legco.
Focusing on one moment in time might miss the main point. Looking
back at the past two decades and the controversies that arose –
national security, national education, extradition, the national
anthem law, political reform and so on – one has a sense of missed
opportunity.
When the government has acted, it invariably started with an
ultra-conservative position and made few meaningful gestures of
compromise. Pan-democrats, meanwhile, lock themselves into
steadfast opposition, with each member scared to suggest compromise
lest they be accused of selling out. The splintering of the
opposition has made serious negotiations virtually impossible.
Moreover, they have not showed much initiative to propose
compromises.
The exception in this saga was the 2010 deal between the Democratic
Party, then-chief executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen and the central
government’s liaison office, which resulted in the five super seats
and an expanded election committee. The Democratic Party was duly
lambasted by friends on the pan-democrat side. Who would risk
another initiative after that?
The root of the problem seems to be that too many political leaders
are not prepared to say clearly that Hong Kong is an irrevocable
part of China. They know it, but they also know some constituents
are not comfortable with their Chinese identity.
The minority who automatically favour whatever Beijing proposes,
and the fringe who support independence or self-determination,
dominate the media with loud voices. Meanwhile, the majority who
accept Chinese sovereignty but want to preserve Hong Kong’s
traditional freedoms are voiceless. Who is speaking up for
moderation? Who in the pan-democratic camp is advocating talking to
Beijing?
There is lots of blame to share. The two most recent
administrations have not shown any interest in working with the
opposition to find compromises. The most vivid example came after
last year’s district council elections when pro-government
candidates lost heavily. The chief executive responded by reaching
out to the losers. “The people have spoken, but I am not interested
in listening” seemed to be the message.
The opposition cannot escape responsibility, either, through their
inability to initiate solid proposals or offer coherent
counterproposals.
Some have accused the National People’s Congress of brushing aside
Hong Kong’s government and forcefully intervening in local affairs.
It might be more accurate to say Hong Kong abdicated its
responsibilities. As we know, nature abhors a vacuum. Our inaction
over many years created one, and now Beijing has filled it.
Mike Rowse is the CEO of Treloar Enterprises.
Mike Rowse has lived in Hong Kong since 1972, and is a naturalised
Chinese citizen. He spent six years in the ICAC from 1974 to 1980,
then 28 years in the government as an administrative officer until
retirement in December 2008. He is now the search director for
Stanton Chase International, and also hosts a radio talk show and
writes regularly for both English and Chinese media.
