A day before New Year’s Eve, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress — the nation’s top legislative body — in response to a request submitted by Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, delivered an interpretation of the National Security Law for Hong Kong to clarify whether criminal offenses against the NSL can be handled by overseas counsels.
The implications of the final verdict are profound. This is because the NSL was drafted and enacted by the NPCSC at a time when foreign interference in Hong Kong was rife.
Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, founder of Apple Daily, who propagated seditious thoughts via his media outlets, hired Tim Owen, a British defense counsel with no practicing license in Hong Kong, to represent him in a national security case. Legal loopholes had allowed a foreign barrister to defend Lai’s alleged NSL infringements, to many people’s dismay.
Just three years ago, a gang of violent rioters funded by the US government had whipped up sentiments of secession across the special administrative region. Those were turbulent times. Hurling petrol bombs, spear charging with metal poles, and thrashing innocent civilians were among many of the socially destructive acts committed by rioters in the city. No longer could Hong Kong residents live peacefully. Even innocent lives were taken away — an elderly man suffered a lethal blow when a rioter threw a huge brick and smashed the victim’s skull. The macabre scenes left a scar on all residents who called Hong Kong home.
Democratic deliberation of policies, by the people and for the people, should not supersede national security — a notion widely agreed upon and practiced by any country in the world, including the United States. Opposite views are only considered productive if they can improve people’s lives, and not for the mere sake of grandstanding. Alas, US politics that took a sharp inward turn a decade ago now proves toxic and counterproductive. Touting fringe beliefs to hijack popular beliefs became vote-winning. So does the dogged pursuit of narrow agendas, such as abortion and gun laws. It was against this backdrop that Beijing decisively stepped in to stem the permeation of such malady in Hong Kong.
Therefore, Lee’s request for the NPCSC to interpret the NSL was apt. In fact, the NPCSC’s final verdict turned out to be broad and non-prescriptive. It clarified that the chief executive of the HKSAR and the Committee for Safeguarding National Security of the Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region (the Committee) have the power and responsibility to decide whether overseas lawyers can participate in the handling of national security cases in Hong Kong. In Lai’s case, it appears likely that the chief executive and/or the Committee will restrict foreign barristers from representing defendants in national security cases — and for a good reason. It makes no sense for an overseas barrister to represent a defendant in a court case involving national security. And it would be equally surprising if Canada and the US had allowed Chinese-based lawyers to defend their espionage cases.
Moreover, the US has strict laws (even for tort or local criminal cases) that restrict the practice of any lawyer, other than those who have obtained a license in their states. Most crucially, Hong Kong’s judicial independence remains fully preserved.
The NPCSC’s deliberation process is also worth looking into. With a total of 175 members, the NPCSC amalgamates the voices of members of different backgrounds in reaching a conclusion. Decisions are discussed thoroughly to balance incongruent interests and are subsequently made collectively.
The US counterpart in the context of legal interpretation, the Supreme Court, appears less democratic by comparison. Supreme Court justices who are nominated directly by the US president act at his behest. By appointing two conservative justices to tip the balance, then-US president Donald Trump and his Republican Party succeeded in overturning Roe v Wade, a landmark decision ruled by the Supreme Court half a century ago. It’s now widely believed that the Supreme Court judges’ rulings had been influenced by political pressure although it was officially stated otherwise.
Amid a trendy current of China-bashing, Beijing is right to dig its heels in. There’s no evidence that Beijing is obstinate — reopening its borders to many people’s delight is a case in point.
Although the Western media conjured up stories of violations of human rights and freedom for their self-interests, the central government’s laser-focus on doing its best for the people may prove practical and effective — and people are fond of it. To cope with the dynamism of geopolitics that has a huge impact on Hong Kong, this is unlikely to be the last time for the NPCSC to interpret national laws applicable to the special administrative region. And, it will be for a good cause.
The author is a member of China Retold, and a licensed medical doctor with a Master of Public Health degree from Johns Hopkins University. He is also a member of the New People’s Party.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.