You may or may not have heard about a new national security law introduced by China for Hong Kong. This law is said by lawyers and legal experts to fundamentally change the legal system in the territory. The result of this legislation is Beijing being given extensive powers which are said to shape life in the territory far beyond the legal system. These powers given to Beijing have never been held before by them.
One large feature of the law passed is the introduction of new crimes which carry mainly severe punishments with the top punishment being up to life in prison. Another main feature of this legislation is allowing the mainland Chinese security forces to operate in Hong Kong. Some of my concerns with the legislation include the broadness and vagueness of language used when writing the legislation and also how it hints towards the fact that they want to put a stop to many of the freedoms they currently experience.
To back up my points of vague language inclusion and invasion of freedoms; I will now list the articles ,out of the total 66, found within the legislation that most affects Hong Kong.
These are:
Article 29- It states that anyone who conspires with foreigners to provoke ‘hatred’ of the Chinese government, or the authorities in Hong Kong could have committed a criminal offence.
Article 55- It gives Chinese mainland security operatives the right to investigate some national security cases that are ‘complex’, ‘serious’ or ‘difficult’.
Article 41- Trials can be held in secret.
Article 46- Trials can be held without a jury.
Article 44- Judges can be handpicked by Hong Kong’s chief executive, who has to answer to Beijing.
Article 42- It suggests that there is no limit on the length of time suspects can be held by the authorities. Instead it states that cases should be handled in a ‘timely manner’.
Article 56- The entirety of a case ranging from the investigation to deciding a punishment can just be handed over to the authorities situated on the mainland.
But now moving on to cover what power the British Government has to try and reduce the effect and severity of this law on Hong Kong. Before I get into this you may need a quick history lesson on why Britain has any relevance.
So on January the 25th of 1841 Britain invaded the Chinese mainland but at the time they were occupying the island of Hong Kong and used it as a military staging point. The Qing Dynasty (the country that would eventually become the people’s Republic of China) lost the war, called the first opium war, and had to agree to the Treaty of Nanking on the 29th of August 1842 which meant that the island of Hong Kong was ceded to the United Kingdom. Hong Kong was established as a crown colony in 1843 and its status of crown colony lasted until 1981 where it changed to a British Dependent Territory. This new status lasted until 1997 where the UK gave Hong Kong to China. May I please just make sure you’re aware that during World War 2 the island was under occupation of the Japanese army.
Now to really cover why Britain is relevant. When the return happened at midnight on July the 1st 1997, it was agreed on both sides that China would implement a ‘one country, two systems’ arrangement that would allow the city a ‘high degree of autonomy’ for 50 years. This ‘one country,two systems’ policy is included in a document which is called the Basic Law, this can also be interpreted as Hong Kong’s mini constitution. These documents make sure basic rights were protected, such as freedom of speech or freedom of assembly, please note that these rights don’t exist in mainland China this proves the importance. It also sets out the structure of governance found within the territory.
So far the UK has taken action to offer residency rights for three million people currently living in Hong Kong. I’m also glad I delayed the release of this post because of major recent events. Recently the UK suspended their extradition treaty with the former territory. This means that the UK government can no longer request British criminals in Hong Kong to return to face justice. There has also been a large international response as well. This response includes the UK, US and EU accusing China of undermining the ‘one country, two systems’ agreement. They also said that the introduction of this security law is a breach of the 1984 Joint Declaration, which is effectively the basic law. The UK has now decided to increase its criticism of the human rights record currently held by China; this record is compiled of their treatment of Uighurs Muslims and personal stories of horrible treatment during criminal proceedings. I am aware of the sanctions and other individual actions taken by the Trump Administration but I will not be covering them in this article.
Right now from one perspective you could say it looks like one big game of accusations. This perspective is reinforced when you hear that China has done their fair share of making accusations. These accusations include towards the UK for ‘brutal meddling’ in their internal affairs. But the opposition, led by Keir Starmer, is calling for sanctions imposed on Chinese officials for their role in introducing the national security law and the treatment of Uighur Muslims. Keir Starmer is in an excellent position to put pressure on the government on this issue because of his experience being a human rights lawyer and barrister. The government has said that they have placed all necessary sanctions on Chinese officials even though no sanctions have been issued.
The national security law was enacted by a presidential order that was signed by XI Jinping, the Chinese leader, and then voted on by a committee to decide if it should be listed in Hong Kong’s basic law. This is all according to Xinhua,Xinhua, the official Chinese state news agency. The UK has said that the legislation is a breach of the ‘one country, two systems’ agreement but they haven’t taken any more action than that in stopping the legislation. There are a few human rights groups supporting the protestors and saying that this law is a breach of human rights but international declarations do allow for national security laws but I’m not sure to what extent. I hope you have learnt something and you will hopefully hear more from me soon.
Teen Politics 
Leave a comment