Entanglement under chilling effect (Lee Yee)
The first line of the “Manifesto of the Communist Party” issued in 1848 said: “A spectre is haunting Europe – the spectre of communism”. Back then, Hong Kong was about to open for trade. And now, this “spectre of communism” has dressed in a national security law, haunting Hong Kong. Since the National Security Law taking effect last week, the ferocious voices of resistance have been fading out of the media. Chris Yeung, the Chairperson of the Hong Kong Journalists Association, has pointed out that “chilling effect” has turned up. He was asked by a reporter whether it is still at journalists’ option to interview Chris Patten. Except for Apple Daily, almost all media have drawn a veil over any affairs pertaining to the National Security Law. Even perennial contributors to the forum and finance section of the news medium have bidden farewell to readers.
In the past few days, my relatives overseas and friends in Hong Kong have been more attentive to me than usual, not asking me if I would leave Hong Kong, but telling me to leave. Will I leave off writing? Is writing with extreme caution worthwhile? I am already at an advanced age, and have already accomplished what I aspired to.
Though I encouraged readers “not to get predominated by fear” in my column last week, to say I am not scared is to deceive myself and others, not least when being confronted with a law of extreme power from a country alien to us. Hong Kongers are used to observing laws, inclusive of the evil ones. Beijing and Hong Kong government officials have asked Hong Kong people time and again not to defy the law, yet on the day of promulgation when the citizens were still digesting it, the law was enforced in a manner we are not familiar with. How could journalists and columnists not feel threatened?
The National Security Law pledges respect and protection for human rights, including freedom of speech, assembly and demonstration. The said rights are enshrined in the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China as well, but their implementation is a far cry from those implemented in Hong Kong in the past. In my lifetime career as an editor and writer, I had been able to say anything and express any opinions including those in demonstrations. Before the National Security Law coming into effect, the judicature in Hong Kong had changed already. Afterward, it will only get worse.
In legal cases of western countries with a common law system, “promoting” and ‘instigating” are not considered criminal acts because they are intents which are intangible, invisible and unprovable, and it is hardly possible to demarcate “instigating” from “appealing” , and “promoting” from “advocating”. Yet, in recent years, Hong Kong courts have been making sentences based on the offence of “inciting”. Under the National Security Law, it is barely feasible for me to talk the court out of sentencing me for “inciting” with my commentaries.
I just write to put forward my viewpoints that are open to free interpretations of which I do not have foreknowledge, whereby I can ensure my writings do not “incite” Hong Kong citizens to “loathe” the central and SAR government. However, once the sentiment is generated, the author is embroiled in a legal case.
The National Security Law states that “the HKSAR shall promote national security education in schools and through social organisations, the media, the internet and other means”. Is it a crime not to promote “national security education” in schools and through the media and the internet, inasmuch as it is a law already?
Two words “and universities” were put after “in schools” in the English edition issued three days after the promulgation of the Law. Shall we follow the Chinese or English edition? Will there be more updates coming up?
Two days ago, the Committee for Safeguarding National Security established in accordance with the National Security Law issued “Detailed Rules for Implementation” in a meeting, in which Article 5 stipulates that the authorities shall “call for information about activities relating to Hong Kong from foreign and Taiwan’s political organizations and their respective representatives.” If foreign and Taiwan’s political organizations and their representatives do not provide the police with information as required, the relevant personnel will face 6 months in jail and a fine of HKD100,000 upon conviction; if the information provided is fake, incorrect or incomplete, a 2-year jail and a fine of HKD100,000 are expected.
How is the implementation of the National Security Law enforced on overseas countries and Taiwan? How are people in those countries convicted of the crime? Will wolf warriors be dispatched to the U.S. and Taiwan to snatch them back to Hong Kong? Taiwan Executive Yuan President Su Tsengchang responded, “The law enacted in China goes so far as to exercise jurisdiction over everywhere and all the peoples around the world, even over Taiwan.”
The National Security Law and its enforcement is too elusive for ordinary people to understand, and impalpable for writers to manoeuvre. If it is too precarious for one to tread a tightrope, staying away from it is an easy way out. Is it the writing or the person that should stay away from it? This is exactly the entanglement a lot of writers and I cannot stay away from for now.
