Now Hong Kongers don’t even have the right to say this: “Give me Liberty or or give me Death” 

Before we talk about what happened in Hong Kong on 7 July, let’s start with a famous quote from 984 years ago by Fan Zhongyan [who served as a minister to the Song emperor Renzong], which literally means “I would rather die than live without expressing my own opinion.”

The historical background of Fan’s phrase is set in the North Song Dynasty, when tension arose between different political groups, he and Ouyang Xiu were both dismissed by the emperor. Fan’s friend, Mei Yaochen, composed Lin Wu Fu (Note 1) in order to advise him not to say anything that could potentially offend the emperor and Fan replied also with Lin Wu Fu, which had the phrase “I would rather die than live without being allowed to express my opinion”.

To choose to speak truth and die rather than to live but remain silent. 

984 years later, the Hong Kong government quietly and promptly completed composing the Implementation Rules for Article 43 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region gazetted (Implementation Rules) and it is set to become effective immediately. The Implementation Rules was jointly composed by the authority in Hong Kong and the National Security Committee (whose members are nominated by the Chinese Central Government). The Hong Kong government said it will “explain” the relevant details to the Legislative Council (LegCo), which means that the government will only disclose the relevant details to the members of the LegCo after the law is in place. So, how will the Implementation Rules affect us?

You might notice that we use “us” in this article rather than “residents of Hong Kong” for the reason that this law is designed to be applied to every single person on earth and this also includes Taiwan. Under Chinese laws, Taiwan is regarded as part of China. Since the law applies as far as Europe and America, Taiwan is just a piece of cake for this law. So, let’s have a look at what’s included in the amazing “detailed rules”:

1. In the future, the Hong Kong police can search any place or person without a warrant issued by the court, as long as the search is considered to be necessary by the national security agency.

2. The police can request the court to issue an order to seize any foreigner’s passport. So anyone who is alleged to breach the national security law will not be allowed to leave Hong Kong. 

3. If the commissioner of the Security Bureau believes that certain property is the source of funding that endangers national security, he/ she can seize the property right away and, at the same time, the court even has the right to issue an order to confiscate the property.

4. It is everyone’s responsibility to inform the police if they believe certain property is a threat to national security, and the police will take care of the property right away.

5. If the Hong Kong police suspects that any action on the Internet is posing a threat to national security, it can order the platforms to remove certain information and can also block internet users from viewing the information with the approval of the commissioner of the Security Bureau.

6. If the platform refuses to take action, the Security Bureau can request a court order that enables the Bureau to inspect the electronic devices and, at the same time, the Bureau has the right to order the platform to hand over users’ data and decrypt agreement.

7. The commissioner of the Hong Kong Police has the right to issue a written notice to organizations based outside of Hong Kong (including Taiwan) to request information of personal asset, income and activity details within a certain deadline if the commissioner believes that someone is threatening national security.

8. The commissioner of the Hong Kong Police can directly command the operation, including intercepting and tagging telecommunications if there is any activity that potentially threatens national security.

9. The government has the right to order anyone to answer any question within a certain deadline and surrender data if necessary.

10. Any individual who refuses to remove the information as requested can face a maximum penalty of HKD 100,000 and a sentence of up to one year in prison. Any Internet Service Provider who does not cooperate with the investigation will face up to a 100,000 HKD fine and can be jailed for up to 6 months. If the organizations based outside of Hong Kong refuses to comply, they could also face a 100,000 HKD fine and will be jailed for up to six months, while providing false data can face a 100,000 HKD fine and spend a maximum of 2 years behind the bar.

As we can see, the Implementation Rules are pretty interesting and reflect how China sees the world: You are all under my rule and, at the same time, China completely ignores the principle of legal reservation. The Hong Kong government may request any organisation based outside of Hong Kong to disclose sensitive data or otherwise may issue a fine to the responsible person of the organisation. Apart from getting fined, if the responsible person provides false information or refuses to cooperate, he/she can be put in prison. Social media platforms like Facebook and Instagram must remove certain information as per the instruction from the Hong Kong government and disclose personal information to the government or the responsible person may face a fine and sentences. If the Hong Kong government contacts Mark Zuckerburg and Johnny Chiang and asks them to disclose information on certain Taiwanese, will they compromise or not? Refusing to disclose will result in being listed in the wanted list of Hong Kong Government. If that’s the case, does that mean the 1992 Consensus (Note 2) is meaningless?

There is no denying that the national security law is evil and under the Implementation Rules, Hong Kong’s vitality will disappear. All the charges under the national security law are vague and can be interpreted broadly, thus the government can do whatever it wants: tapping phone lines and searching any premises. If any parties and organizations based in Taiwan refuse to cooperate, the Hong Kong government will put the responsible persons on its wanted list or put them in jail, which makes us doubt if Hong Kong is still a city with the rule of law?

984 years ago, under the threat of absolute monarchy, Fan said, “if you don’t let me express my dissent, I would rather die”. Now, 984 years later, in 2020, the public intellectuals in Hong Kong and China don’t even have the right to remain silent. And Taiwan is China’s next target.

Source: The Stand News, https://www.thestandnews.com/politics/寧鳴而死-不默而生-香港人連說這句話的自由都沒有/

Note 1: Lin Wu Fu (靈烏賦) was composed in the form of an ancient literary style that originated in the Warring States Period. It was an essay of consolation between Mei Yaochen and Fan Zhongyan.

Note 2: 1992 Consensus,  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Consensus