- Pan-democrats routinely encourage outside interference, such as from the United States, while any foreign NGOs can freely criticise and pontificate on local affairs, but they argue the central government’s representatives in the city can’t even make comments under ‘one country, two systems’
The pan-democrats and the Bar Association say political organs of the central government cannot comment on Hong Kong affairs, otherwise it's interference amounting to a breach of "one country, two systems".
The latest furore has to do with criticism of the opposition's filibustering in the powerful House Committee of the legislature.
However, since the return of Hong Kong to China in 1997, opposition figures have routinely colluded with foreign governments, especially Washington, and invited them to interfere in the city's affairs.
They have encouraged, even demanded foreign governments with obvious hostile intentions, to investigate and sanction local and mainland officials, as well as the police. Many of their statements are no more than half-truths and outright provocations.
And yet, they are allowed to do it. In Hong Kong it's perfectly legal to invite foreign governments' interference. In most places, such activities may be construed as treason, sedition or subversion, but not in Hong Kong. Perhaps we are lucky, or unlucky, depending on your political stance.
That's why pan-democratic politicians are so afraid ofArticle 23 legislation under the Basic Law, which would outlaw their actions. It would bring into practice what most countries have in terms of the law for self-defence against hostile foreign forces and those who collide with them.
I happen to be against enacting Article 23 any time soon because it would almost certainly plunge Hong Kong into another bout of widespread unrest. The city needs a long period of peace and stability to recover socially and economically.
But the opposition and its allies in the Bar Association should stop the charade alleging Beijing's interference every time a mainland official opens his mouth about Hong Kong.
If it's OK for pan-dems to collude with hostile Western states and other political groups " especially Washington and its congressional politicians " they have no logical or moral ground to oppose mainland criticisms.
Though this has never been tested because Beijing has been respectful of the city's high degree of autonomy, it may be perfectly justified in intervening in matters with which foreign governments such as the US are interfering.
After all, Beijing is responsible for the city's foreign affairs under the Basic Law. What else do you call foreign interference in the city if not hostile conduct affecting the diplomatic relationship between states?
Copyright (c) 2020. South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd. All rights reserved.