Opinion

National security law: how a ‘burning’ Hong Kong wore out Beijing’s patience

Tensions have long simmered on Hong Kong’s journey of integration with the mainland: the long-running protests triggered by the extradition bill were the last straw

Carrie Lam and her opponents share blame for jeopardising the future of the city and its young people

4-MIN READ4-MIN

Police stand guard on a road to deter pro-democracy protesters from blocking roads in Mong Kok on May 27, as the city’s legislature debates a law to ban the insulting of China’s national anthem. Photo: AFP

Anthony Cheung Bing-leung is chair professor and adviser in public administration at the Education University of Hong Kong and a former secretary for transport and housing (2012-17).

Published: 6:00am, 2 Jun 2020Updated: 6:50am, 2 Jun 2020

The extradition controversy that exploded last June was like Mrs O’Leary’s cow, which ran amok, caused a fire in the family barn and apparently led to the Great Chicago Fire of October 1871. Hong Kong is ‘burning’, with some radical protesters chanting: “If we burn, you burn with us”, taken from Suzanne Collins’ Hunger Games: Mockingjay. Considering the city on the verge of breakdown, the National People’s Congress took the unexpected step of approving a national security law, causing local and international shock, even though the details have yet to be unveiled.

It is mind-boggling how a bill ignited Hong Kong’s worst governance crisis and placed the prospect of “one country, two systems” in jeopardy.

Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor was arguably at her political peak when she decided early last year to legislate for extradition arrangements with the mainland, Macau and Taiwan. The lack of such arrangements has a long history, dating from British colonial rule.

The Chan Tong-kai case, involving the murder in Taiwan of a young woman, also a Hongkonger like Chan, provided the reason for quick legislative action. The bill followed the international practice for extradition, with the court playing a judicial gatekeeping role and the chief executive having the final veto, where justified by public interest.