The life of a tyrant sporadically trying to pretend to be reasonable and fair is never easy. So many people are unwilling to believe the lies in good faith. Well, that’s what totalitarian apparatuses of repression are for.
The Hong Kong minister of security, Chris Tang Ping-keung, wants people to know that the government has been attending to their concerns—the legitimate concerns only, to be sure—about the new, Hong Kong–hatched National Security Law. The one being imposed supposedly to close nonexistent loopholes in the freedom-murdering National Security Law that China imposed on Hong Kong in 2020.
Tang (shown above) wants people to know that the government of Hong Kong has truly been genuinely listening to the concerns of the people. Not to the purveyors of “smears,” no. Not to “external forces.” Not to “runaway Hongkongers.” Not to anyone seeking to undermine Hong Kong “security” by supporting freedom and democracy or independence from the oppressive mainland.
The time has come
The Hong Kong government has provided a period of discussion, of nodding and listening, all well and good, fine. But now this period is coming to an end, Chris Tang says, and the legislation is going to be formally enacted with enough meaningless changes to demonstrate due consideration to all voiced concerns that the Hong Kong government is willing to construe as legitimate.
Tang knows what happens next. He can see it all. The bad people will persist in their villainy. The good people will accept and cherish the protections being generously bestowed upon them by the new law to save them from the other type.
“Soon,” Tang says, “we will introduce the bill after wrapping up the consultation. We expect that after the bill is introduced, the people we want to guard against…will do more smear work, and the public must recognise the truth that Article 23 is here to protect our safety.”
In the chamber on Wednesday, Tang said authorities had heard residents’ concerns, most of which related to the proposed offences of seditious intentions, theft of state secrets and foreign interference.
He said a person could be charged with the state secret offence only if they intended to endanger national security, and sedition charges could not be brought for criticising the government as long as such remarks were fact-based.
These would be extremely reassuring reassurances—that under the improved regime you’ll be incarcerated and brutalized only if you “intend” to endanger what the state is pleased to call “national security” and only if your criticisms of the government are not “fact-based”—were it not for several—well, facts.
Just the facts
The first fact is that Chinese Communist Party officials couldn’t care less what the professed intentions of their victims may be. For evidence, see their track record from Mao to now.
The second fact is that the concept of “national security” as deployed by the CCP is elastic enough to include any and all criticism of the state that the Chinese state decides should be punished. You don’t have to be planning to blow up the Politboro. Holding up a blank piece of white paper is enough.
The third fact is that individuals have the right of freedom of speech even when their speech consists of bullshit, of which non-facts, which may or may not be lies, are one subdivision.
The fourth fact is that the Chinese state, not its victims, will be making the determination of what constitutes a fact. And as anyone who has ever listened to Chinese propagandists “resolutely” assert this and that, robust reverence for truth is not a CCP strong suit.
The fifth fact is that the bureaucrats, judges, lawmakers, and executives of Hong Kong take their marching orders from the Chinese Communist Party just as CCP minions on the mainland do.
Legislator Michael Tien Puk-sun, who had previously shared information about border reopening and rail operations with the media, said he felt assured after attending the exchange session on Wednesday, as he was confident that he would not cross the line in endangering national security for revealing such unannounced details.
Obviously, then, legislator Michael Tien Puk-sun has nothing to worry about—unless, that is, he says a little more than he’s said so far.
