If we are not retained, we stay (Lee Yee)
During the few days around July 1 that the Hong Kong version of National Security Law took effect, the city reached its nadir. The pro-communist made an extremely menacing rendition of the law and its articles. When the public was still digesting the law on the day it was promulgated, the police put it into practice. On June 28, Wang Dan, an activist in the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, said in his Facebook post that information from Beijing revealed Jimmy Lai and Joshua Wong would be apprehended upon the National Security Law becoming effective on July 1, though extradition to China was unknown. Meanwhile, no sooner had Anson Chen told the media her decision to quit her political endeavor than Chinese state media posed an intimidating query: “Can the bane of Hong Kong shirk the penalty with just a few words ‘quit political endeavour’?” as well as wantonly disseminating the tidings: “ The head of the Hong Kong independence gang absconds in fear of the ‘National Security Law for Hong Kong’”. What’s more, after the UK declared citizenship offer to BNO passport holders in Hong Kong, Global Times Chief Editor Hu Xijin said “the Chief Secretary would ban them from leaving Hong Kong”. Worse still, Hong Kong people worried that their lives would be shattered by the U.S.’s sanction to decouple HKD from USD, be it hearsay.
While living in fear, quite some Hong Kong people are changing HKD into USD, fleeing from the city right away or busy rustling up whatever they can for emigration. However, the primaries of the democrats on Sunday still drew in long queues of 610,000 citizens, who were fearless of the machete dangling over their heads, sprawling all over the place in the city. The results showed that localists and amateur participants triumphed lopsidedly, suggesting that support for valiant protests prevails among the pro-democracy electorate despite the terrifying National Security Law.
The UK, the U.S., Australia and Taiwan have pledged humanitarian assistance to Hong Kong people horrified at the National Security Law. Be that as it may, some Hong Kong people are still worried that the SAR government will ban BNO passport holders from leaving the city, or request civil servants to relinquish their BNO passports.
The author of Radio Free Asia’s “Late night talk about Zhongnanhai” indicates in his latest article that the Chinese and Hong Kong government do not care about Hong Kong people making off abroad, but wring their hands in agitation that with the terrifying National Security Law implemented, Hong Kong people stay put.
He cited the 2005 speech by Yan Xuetong, senior researcher at the Council of State Security of the People's Republic of China, about the Anti-secession Law: “When we talk about the integrality of sovereignty and territory, we refer to Taiwan as a piece of land, not Taiwanese, so the Anti-secession Law dismisses the separation of this piece of land, not the independence of Taiwanese. We do not object to the right of Taiwanese to casting off their Chinese identity. However, since Taiwan is an inseparable part of China, we have the right to deny Taiwanese request for establishing a country on our land“. His remarks were summarized as a policy of “retaining the island not the people” towards Taiwan.
The contemplation of the “retaining the island not the people” policy is on the same line with “retaining Hong Kong not the people”. In light of the scale of the anti-extradition bill movement last year, even the dumbest know that it is hardly possible to brainwash Hong Kong people or turn them into patriots. That being the case, maybe the harshness of the National Security Law and the hastiness of its legislative procedure are aimed at creating vibes of awe and shock. Offers of paths to citizenships from the West to Hong Kong people are probably what the Chinese Communist Party is glad to see, in spite of verbal objection that is part of its vanity project. In fact, it eagerly looks forward to the unpatriotic running away from the city, nothing loath. Zhao Lijian, the official spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, expressed the idea alternatively: “The entrance and exit are always open in China.” It means emigration is totally at Hong Kong people’s discretion and taking them in at foreign countries’ own sweet will.
China is never wanting in people. With a mass exodus of Hong Kong people, China is able to make an overall replacement of Hong Kong’s citizens by mainlanders that are used to living under a despotism.
A month ago, Deutsche Welle asked Joshua Wong in an interview: Why do protests continue while quite a number of Hong Kong people said Hong Kong and “one country, two systems” is already dead? Wong answered: The Hong Kong with which we were acquainted has been dead for long while ‘one country, two systems” exists in name only. That said, hiding out in a foreign country is not the way to resolve the problem. When the extradition amendment bill was tabled last year, people deliberated about emigration and hiding out in a foreign country as well. Yet, in the end, everybody strived for a favourable turn. After the severe test in the past year, protest has become part of Hong Kongers’ DNA.
Joshua Wong said a lot of people are more valiant than him. From the remarks of the participants in the primaries and the high voter turnout, Hong Kongers are not overawed at all. The menacing policy of replacing Hong Kongers with mainlanders is doomed to failure. While Hong Kongers are aware of the fact that after surrender comes suppression, the powerful authoritarian ought to be aware of the fact that after intimidation and violence comes not fleeing and a bunch of abjectly obedient citizens, but continual protests in diversified forms.
What can the powerful authoritarian do to a stack of people who could not be beaten to death, nor overwhelmed, and now cannot be scared away?
