Hong Kong’s extradition protests are yet another crisis of the government’s own making

In this and other mass rallies since 2003, Hongkongers are rising up in defence of their rights and freedoms only because their government can’t – or won’t – find its voice to defend the city’s core values against pressure from Beijing

Michael C. Davis

Published: 7:00am, 18 Jun 2019

Why you can trust SCMP

With the extradition bill, Hong Kong finds itself in another of its long parade of crises. If these crises have one thing in common, it is that they are all self-inflicted.

The first of these, the 2003 Article 23 protests, was a case where the Hong Kong government was trying to please Beijing by offering up a totally unnecessary bill on national security. Half a million Hong Kong protesters thought otherwise. More than a decade has since passed and no threats have come to light that existing laws have not adequately addressed.

In 2012, it was the fumbled attempt to please Beijing by offering to brainwash Hong Kong students with national education. Even our young secondary students recognised that, in an open society, any effort to deliver up an uncritical view of history would be doomed to meet with disgust and failure.

In 2014-15, the Hong Kong government took the lead to put forward transparently fake democracy as the city debated electoral reform. Such a design could only come from Beijing, but the government task force on constitutional development that oversaw two public consultations, headed by then chief secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, blocked all suggested modifications, offering only to deliver a democracy where the vetting of candidates would allow no democratic choice. Long before the government unveiled its proposed legislation, the public had signalled its disgust in a civil referendum and massive Occupy protests.

Today, we again have a legislative proposal, on Hong Kong’s extradition agreements with other jurisdictions, including the mainland, that the government is hard pressed to justify. For the one criminal case they point to, Taiwan has already signalled its reluctance to accept rendition of the prisoner under such legislation that poses a substantial risk to Taiwanese in Hong Kong.

Carrie Lam claims she is not being instructed by Beijing to put forward the extradition bill. If this is true, the case against her is even worse. Why would she do something harmful to Hong Kong’s legal firewall to please Beijing when nothing in the Basic Law or even instructions from the central government compels her to do so?

The common problem that stretches across all these many crises is a Hong Kong government and establishment elite that cannot find its voice to defend Hong Kong’s core values. Two million Hong Kong people get it. The government should too.

One cannot know, because it has never been tested, but it is at least possible that Beijing could understand the public concern if it is explained adequately by a local government committed to the autonomy model provided in the Basic Law. The government could suggest amendments or alternatives to address both Beijing’s and public concerns. The one-sided proposals in all of the above cases do not meet that standard.

Autonomy regimes, wherever they exist, fundamentally depend on a local autonomous government committed to defending the autonomy of the community it is charged with governing. This is in the interest of both the central and the local governments. Central governments are generally prone to overreach even in a democracy. An authoritarian government, with repressive habits of strict control, is even more prone to do so.

It may be that a local chief executive, such as Lam, who owes her job to the selection and approval of the central government, is incapable of defending autonomy. One would hope she could at least find her voice to explain local concerns and offer alternatives.

If she and her predecessors are incapable of this, as so far appears, then this explains why Hong Kong people have been so passionate in their demand for the promised democracy. Presumably, a government actually chosen by Hong Kong people would at least find its voice to convey their core concerns.

Such a government, being committed to stability, is unlikely to pose such a confrontational threat as Beijing may fear. It would just be better equipped to represent Hong Kong, voice local concerns and seek alternatives.

In the current case, even the influential business community appears deeply concerned that this extradition law will lead to people being legally snatched off the streets of Hong Kong due to failed business deals on the mainland. Anyone who knows anything about doing business on the mainland knows that the risk of being accused of corruption or fraud in dealing with local sometimes-corrupt officials is high.

A breach of contract or any failed business arrangement can easily become a crime. And the criminal prosecution that follows will not meet the due process requirements expected in Hong Kong.

This concern goes to the core of Hong Kong’s role as Asia’s leading financial centre. Governments elsewhere, in Canada, the US and the UK, have already raised grave concerns. If Hong Kong’s autonomy is degraded, they may withdraw recognition of its distinct status.

Of even greater concern to Hong Kong’s protesters is Beijing’s preoccupation with perceived threats to national security. Will Hong Kong’s dissident speakers now be shipped to the mainland for trial, as threats to national security? The chilling effect of this on free speech is not difficult to imagine. With the heavy-handed police tactics that have accompanied some of the protests, it seems that some mainland approaches to free speech are already in play locally.

It is clear that whatever benefit Lam imagined in seeking to push through this widely hated law is not worth the price to Hong Kong’s autonomy, rule of law and basic freedoms it would entail.

Now is the time, with the legislative process paused, to consider the wisdom of this perilous path. I am sceptical of even trying to amend the proposal. If the government wants to insist, at some future date, on such an amendment for dealing with the rest of the world, then at a minimum it would be wise to follow other examples of exempting local residents and insisting on the full application of human rights standards.

Michael C. Davis, a long time professor in Hong Kong and India, is a Global Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, DC

Post