Stop the vote now Display the results 89 people are present 89 votes in favor Passed unanimously I declare the motion passed What you are now seeing is, on March 19 this year The Hong Kong Legislative Council passing a law This law, famous, is called the "National Security Ordinance" Also known as the notorious Article 23 legislation As you can see, when passing this law 89 votes in favor, 0 against The Hong Kong Legislative Council has a total of 90 legislators 89 people attended, which is a very high attendance rate All the attending legislators were in favor Did you see that? Hong Kong is now implementing the mainland's form of whole-process democracy 89 people are present, 89 votes in favor, passed unanimously I declare the motion passed, those who disagree, please raise your hand No, no, no, no, passed What is called whole-process democracy, that is, unanimous approval When Xi Jinping was elected as the state president 2,752 votes in favor, 0 against Not even casting a vote against himself, that's called whole-process democracy Candidate for President of the People's Republic of China, Xi Jinping, 2,952 votes in favor In the past, this whole-process democracy was only enjoyed by the mainland people Now, the people of Hong Kong can enjoy it too So, did you see it? During the passage of Article 23 legislation by the Hong Kong Legislative Council 89 votes in favor, 0 against Right, this is a typical example of the full implementation of "one country, two systems" in this region of Hong Kong It should be said, when this law was passed this time in Hong Kong, it did not cause much of a stir Many citizens, if you ask them on the street, do you support Article 23 legislation Ah, sorry I don't know Do you understand the legislation of Article 23 of the Basic Law, I'm off to work I'm not available No more talking It's not about supporting or not, you're filming me We should all accept it Whether you agree or not, all agree Because if you oppose, you might be arrested directly Endangering national security, that's what this law stipulates As long as it endangers national security, you're immediately arrested You could be sentenced to life imprisonment at most So now in Hong Kong, if you ask someone on the street, they keep their distance They dare not talk about this topic This topic has already become a taboo in Hong Kong Internationally speaking, it also didn't cause much of a stir Because everyone knows, in May 2020 the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress passed the Hong Kong version of the National Security Law and stuffed it into Annex III of Hong Kong's Basic Law Now to vote, please use the voting device 2,878 votes in favor, one vote against, six abstentions Reading is complete, it is passed Thus, the Central Government bypassed the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to legislate on its own After legislation, a National Security Office was established in Hong Kong Then, cases involving national security are dealt with directly according to mainland law And then, you might even be taken to the mainland for trial At this point, actually Hong Kong's involvement in national security has basically become clear So, this legislation, it should be said, is no exception But at that time, when the Hong Kong version of the National Security Law was passed The National People's Congress repeatedly said, the decision of the National People's Congress The laws introduced by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress do not replace the provisions of Article 23 of the Basic Law of Hong Kong This requires the Special Administrative Region to legislate on its own The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, to fulfill the responsibility of safeguarding national security Including completing the legislation related to the Basic Law as soon as possible Then there's another statement clearly defined in the law To perfect relevant laws, to perfect the relevant legislation So it still requires the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government to carry out the legislation of Article 23 on its own, hence the passage on March 19 this year of Hong Kong's own National Security Ordinance in the Legislative Council In Hong Kong, it was a historic moment waited for 26 years, 8 months, and 19 days The sixth term of the Special Administrative Region government and the seventh Legislative Council finally completed their glorious mission at this historic moment It's a proud moment for Hong Kong SAR to write a glorious history together Although the international community did not make much of a fuss about the passage of this bill But in my view, the official passage of Article 23 legislation in Hong Kong including the passage of the National Security Law by the National People's Congress in 2020 This whole process, also means the complete failure of the One Country, Two Systems principle in Hong Kong, and its formal entry into history So, it's still a very important event Today, let's talk about the story of Article 23 legislation Speaking of Article 23 legislation, first, we have to mention Deng Xiaoping Because when Hong Kong was to return in 1997, China negotiated with Britain The biggest issue faced in negotiations was how mainland China would govern Hong Kong if it returned Because mainland China practices socialism The Communist Party, a dictatorship, a single party But Hong Kong, after over 100 years of British rule had implemented a comprehensive capitalist system with relative human rights protection and its own electoral system So, if you were to fully implement the mainland system you couldn't explain it to the international community So Deng Xiaoping proposed One Country, Two Systems It should be said that the proposal of One Country, Two Systems was very creative at the time One Country, Two Systems means one country with two social systems Socialism in the mainland, capitalism in Hong Kong Meaning all of Hong Kong's current social systems remain unchanged Many Hong Kongers were doubtful at the time Saying how could it be possible for the mainland to practice socialism and Hong Kong capitalism So before the return in '97, many people left Deng Xiaoping reassured the people of Hong Kong with earnest words It won't change, it can't change This is good It's not about short-term stability, but long-term stability I've explained this many times before Right, it's about not changing for 50 years After 50 years, there's even less reason to change So, to implement One Country, Two Systems in Hong Kong the Hong Kong Basic Law was formulated The Basic Law is essentially Hong Kong's mini-constitution It stipulates that Hong Kong has its own final appellate power and also includes that Hong Kong's current systems remain unchanged The entire system is comprehensively separated from the mainland But in Article 23, an additional clause was added That is, in Hong Kong, involvement in treason, subversion of the central government including espionage and so on, a total of seven types of crimes are not allowed That means, while you have two systems, these systems cannot endanger the one country For example, splitting the country, that's not allowed Right, I think this regulation was quite reasonable at the time At the time, there were some doubts about subverting the central government When announced, many citizens in Hong Kong reacted Are you the Communist Party, a one-party dictatorship? What's wrong with a little subversion? If there were an opposition party, wouldn't it be normal to subvert the central government in a democratic society, right? So, later this clause, initially included in the draft, was then removed But after the 8964 incident, the central government added it back in Stating that subverting the people's government is not allowed, nor is subverting the central government But Article 23 legislation specifies that this Article 23 National Security Ordinance will be legislated by the SAR government itself in the future Meaning, after the Hong Kong SAR returns, it will legislate on its own through its Legislative Council, without interference from the central government This essentially handed the legislative power over to the Hong Kong SAR Then in a blink of an eye, it was 1997, because after the return in '97 There was a honeymoon period between the central government and the Hong Kong SAR government At first, no one paid much attention to the conflict between the two systems and one country Actually, there were two constitutional responsibilities back then One was universal suffrage, and the other was Article 23 legislation By 2002, Qian Qichen said that Hong Kong the SAR government, should promote this Article 23 legislation So that year, Tung Chee-hwa started to organize the Legislative Council in Hong Kong to work on this Article 23 legislation At the time, many criticized Tung Chee-hwa, saying are you just listening to the central government? Aren't you the SAR government? Why start working on it just because Qian Qichen said so? Tung Chee-hwa said that was not the case He then worked on a Hong Kong version, the first version of the National Security Ordinance After this National Security Ordinance was drafted It began to solicit opinions from all sectors of society in Hong Kong Once the draft was published, it sparked intense public discussion This draft led to vigorous debate on several issues One issue was the vague definition of national security It was believed that the Hong Kong government could arbitrarily disband civil organizations under this ordinance, which contradicted the principle of rule of law in Hong Kong Right, and there was concern over the expansion of police powers Saying that for cases involving national security the police could enter and search citizens' homes without a court warrant These concerns led to strong opposition from the citizens of Hong Kong Right, and then there was the issue of police power expansion Saying for cases involving national security police could enter people's homes to search without a court warrant This led to a strong backlash from the citizens of Hong Kong All these discussions culminated in the intense debates July 1, 2003, I still remember it, the 6th anniversary of Hong Kong's return to the motherland That year, Prime Minister Wen Jiabao visited Hong Kong How is everyone at home? All good, all good You've worked hard, Prime Minister You've worked hard, Prime Minister Is there any improvement in the sewage system in your house now? Can you understand what I'm saying? I understand, everyone at home is well The family is well I feel very distressed Because During this SARS period Amoy Gardens saw 42 people perish One block alone lost 22 people perished I see everyone is very saddened But unexpectedly, on July 1st Hong Kong witnessed a massive demonstration of 500,000 people, protesting against the central government Actually, the main protest wasn't against Wen Jiabao, but against this Hong Kong version of the National Security Ordinance I remember foreign journalists asking Wen Jiabao Now, during your visit to Hong Kong With 500,000 people protesting outside, what do you think about this issue? This created immense pressure on the SAR government at the time In early July that year Tung Chee-hwa retreated under public pressure, cancelling rights such as police entry into homes for search Several amendments were made I want to share something with you We have so much work to do And the most urgent task Is to try to revive the economy To create as many job opportunities as possible I must also focus all societal attention There, that's essential Five days later Afterward The government announced three amendments to the National Security Ordinance, but legislation was inevitable Unexpectedly, a legislative council member named Tik Chi-yuen then switched sides He was originally with the government but then announced his resignation from the Executive Council And no longer supported the Hong Kong version of the National Security Ordinance After his resignation In the Legislative Council, the government could not secure an absolute majority Meaning, the National Security Ordinance could not be passed In the end, Tung Chee-hwa had no choice but to announce the withdrawal of this legislative process I was sleepless all night The July 1st demonstration timely reminded me No matter how correct I or my colleagues think some policies are we should not and cannot assume that citizens will accept them as a matter of course Not long after the legislative process was withdrawn, Tung Chee-hwa himself resigned You ask if Tung Chee-hwa's resignation was related to the push for the National Security Ordinance I believe it was very much related After Tung Chee-hwa's resignation, subsequent Chief Executives of Hong Kong started to see the National Security Ordinance as a hot potato Although the Article 23 legislation is stipulated as Hong Kong's constitutional responsibility nobody dared to mention it again, and no one dared to bring it up Because the base of public opinion in Hong Kong was strongly against it Especially after 2006, Hong Kong public opinion focused more on the issue of universal suffrage for the Chief Executive in the Basic Law So from 2006 to 2008 to 2010, those years the main debate was about whether universal suffrage could be truly implemented The issue of Article 23 legislation was shelved Before we knew it, it was 2019, and as everyone knows, 2019 was the year of the anti-extradition law movement At that time, a young man from Hong Kong went to Taiwan and ended up killing his girlfriend After the murder, he fled back to Hong Kong Then, it was discovered because of this incident that Hong Kong's extradition laws did not apply to the mainland and Taiwan Because according to the legal stipulations, the mainland and Taiwan are part of the same country as Hong Kong So naturally, extradition laws were involved This led to an absurd outcome That the young man who committed murder in Taiwan, upon returning to Hong Kong couldn't be prosecuted by Hong Kong and couldn't be sent to Taiwan So, Carrie Lam passed something called the extradition bill we have a case right in front of us which has caused a lot of public anxiety a lot of anger so we need to do this expeditiously in order to have the legal framework and the authority to deal with that particular case But when the law was about to be passed in the Legislative Council it sparked a strong backlash among the people of Hong Kong Because the people of Hong Kong thought more about if you're wanted in the mainland and Hong Kong were to arrest you, the legal systems of the mainland and Hong Kong are vastly different That's two systems, one country, two social systems For example, if you say in the mainland, "Down with the Communist Party of China" then surely the mainland would issue a warrant for your arrest Right, Peng Zaizhou posted an ordinance, and then the person just disappeared Now, if Peng Zaizhou were to flee to Hong Kong then under this extradition bill, he would have to be arrested and sent to the mainland Then what? The freedom of speech that Hong Kongers pride themselves on would be gone Imagine, for 30 years consecutively after 8964, Hong Kong has held June 4th rallies, candlelight vigils every year If you were to apply the mainland's legal stipulations In the mainland, if you hold a June Fourth memorial candlelight vigil You would definitely be arrested; it's considered a crime So, Hong Kong people were adamantly against the extradition bill The anti-extradition bill protests escalated, involving issues of universal suffrage, resulting in intense conflicts This led to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress in 2020 bypassing Hong Kong's SAR government to enact a Hong Kong version of the National Security Law Now to vote, please use the voting device Please press the voting button Please press the voting device 2,878 votes in favor One vote against Six abstentions Reading completed Passed This National Security Law was directly inserted into Annex III of Hong Kong's Basic Law A National Security Office was to be established in Hong Kong Cases involving national security would be directly governed by mainland law And this National Security Office would not be subject to Hong Kong law It could operate in Hong Kong as it wished After this law came out, Hong Kong immediately plunged into a state of silence Jimmy Lai, Joshua Wong, etc., were arrested, as everyone knows The subsequent issue was why, after implementing such a Hong Kong version of the National Security Law by the mainland Hong Kong was still asked to enact its own National Security Law under Article 23 Actually, it seemed unnecessary, right? Because the mainland's National Security Law essentially resolved the issues However, there's still a difference, mainly because the mainland's National Security Law couldn't cover all contents of the Article 23 legislation And most importantly it's unlikely that the mainland would directly arrange for litigation procedures So, looking at this Hong Kong version of the National Security Law I think in terms of content and litigation procedures it complements the mainland version of the National Security Law Firstly, in terms of content, most are copied from the National Security Law For example, defining what constitutes national security, which was of greatest concern to Hong Kong people at the beginning It was what Hong Kong people feared the most when the mainland's National Security Law was passed That is, the state's power, sovereignty, territorial integrity People's welfare, economic development, all these are considered national security It's an all-encompassing concept Territorial integrity is understandable, but political power is complicated Political power means the CCP-led government, which in the mainland is considered national security If you dare to attack the CCP, you are violating national security But think about it, this conflicts greatly with the freedom of speech that Hong Kong people pride themselves on In the past, being anti-communist was legal in Hong Kong, but now you can't be anti-communist If you are anti-communist, you are considered a threat to national security Also, things like economic development and people's welfare are considered national security That definition is too broad So in terms of content, Hong Kong's National Security Law is basically copied from the mainland's National Security Law And the sentencing is basically the same, all life imprisonment Even many provisions not specified in the mainland's National Security Law are detailed in it, hastily put together during the so-called chaos in Hong Kong So they hurriedly crafted a National Security Law But now Hong Kong has more sufficient time For example, regarding banned organizations members of banned organizations are prohibited from organizing marches or demonstrations If you condone or allow it If there's a member of a banned organization in your march Once it's discovered, using your venue or you've allowed it you'll be sentenced to 7 years in prison Imagine, if someone wants to organize a march How would you know if there's a member of a banned organization among them? So such detailed provisions essentially killed the right to protest and demonstrate that Hong Kongers had Who would dare to approve a demonstration now? In your mall During the anti-extradition movement, there were gatherings and singing in malls If you do it now, the manager of the mall would be arrested and sentenced to 7 years in prison What's more important, I personally believe is the addition regarding legal procedures This addition to the legal procedures is essentially a complete regression of the rule of law in Hong Kong It mainly involves three rights The first right is the rapid expansion of police powers This rapid expansion of police powers is mainly reflected in the 2003 version's right for police to search homes Without a court order, they could enter homes to search This time it's directly included in the Hong Kong version of the National Security Law It's stipulated that, in principle, upon accusation and with a court directive, police can search But under what circumstances can police search without a court directive? It says if the police believe that not entering could lead to the loss of evidence, then under these circumstances police can search without court authorization directly entering the suspect's premises And this includes a wide range of places, such as ships, rooms, structures Citing potential evidence destruction as a reason is too easy As long as the police suspect you, they can claim If I don't enter, the evidence will be destroyed Right, this equates to a significant expansion of police powers We know that, in a legal society, one crucial aspect is the limitation of police powers Because the police possess the legitimate use of force If their powers are not restricted, citizens' rights will inevitably be harmed Hence, all rule-of-law nations have substantial restrictions on the exercise of police powers For example, Hong Kong's laws previously stated that a suspect could only be detained for a maximum of 48 hours before being released But this time it's different, now it's stipulated that after 48 hours, detention can be extended for 7 days, and then another 7 days after that Meaning, you can detain a person for a total of 16 days Compared to 48 hours, that's a significant difference Imagine, the mainland allows for even longer detentions, indefinitely in fact They say detain for two months, then continue further without end Then eventually you might be placed under "shuanggui" or detained at a specified time and place In the mainland's legal system The rights of suspects are indeed very low Now, Hong Kong is also rapidly regressing This is about police powers And the rights of suspects have been greatly constrained The mainland's procedural law Really does grant very low rights to criminal suspects But now Hong Kong is also experiencing a sharp decline This is about police powers And the rights of suspects have been severely restricted The first point is the right to meet with a lawyer Consider that after someone is arrested Facing police interrogation, ordinary people don't understand the law So, to gauge a country's human rights condition Look at when a lawyer can intervene In the mainland, lawyers can't intervene during the initial criminal investigation phase Only after the investigation is completed can the lawyer meet the criminal suspect In Hong Kong, you could see a lawyer as soon as you entered detention But now, Hong Kong's National Security Law stipulates that if you are charged with certain crimes Related to national security, they can restrict you, not allowing you to meet Or say you can meet with a lawyer, but with many restrictions It's not like you can see a lawyer whenever you want This is a significant regression in the rights of criminal suspects The second aspect is about bail Hong Kong's law on bail was different from the mainland's In the mainland, bail is the exception, and detaining you is the norm For example, from the moment the police arrest you until you are sent to the procuratorate And then to court for prosecution, you're not granted bail in principle Except for a very few suspects who may be granted bail But you can see in the main judicially civilized countries The principle is bail As long as the person released does not have an immediate risk of reoffending or fleeing, they can be released on bail by paying a bail amount Then, if the court later finds you guilty, you go to jail to serve your sentence This also aligns more with the principle of the presumption of innocence But that's not the case in the mainland Hong Kong used to follow this principle, but this time The regulations regarding bail have also significantly regressed For example, it's stipulated that after being granted bail, the police can issue restrictions on you Limiting your movements, and there are many nuances in these restrictions It stipulates that you can be required to reside at a specified place At specified times, to live in this specified place, which is quite alarming For example, although I've granted you bail But after bail, you must reside in a place I designate Like a room in a certain hotel, room 503 If you reside there, isn't that the same as not being bailed at all? Because if you reside at a designated place and time Then, think about it, you haven't gained personal freedom with that bail What's the difference between being bailed or not? More importantly, even if you are bailed After residing at a designated time and place, your communications are also restricted For example, it's stipulated that you can only contact specific people Or you are not allowed to contact others, which essentially means For instance, under the stipulations, you can only make a phone call to your family under police supervision, and no one else This kind of bail, in my opinion, essentially follows the mainland's model Of designated times and places, bypassing bail regulations In essence, bail should grant complete personal freedom Except for the condition that you cannot flee, look at Meng Wanzhou In Canada, she just had an electronic monitoring bracelet, but all other behaviors were normal That's the normal state of bail in a normal country But bail in Hong Kong, even if you are bailed Frankly, you might still not achieve personal freedom Hong Kong has now adopted the mainland's method Of designated times and places, circumventing bail regulations In reality, bail should grant a kind of complete personal freedom Except for not fleeing, as everyone saw with Meng Wanzhou When she was in Canada, she just wore an electronic monitoring bracelet All other activities were normal That's the normal condition of bail in a normal country But in future Hong Kong, even if you're bailed Truthfully, you might not be able to gain personal freedom at all But these regulations are not present in the mainland's National Security Law Because they pertain to procedural law, which is stipulated by Hong Kong's version of the National Security Law This Hong Kong version of the National Security Law Combined with the mainland version of the National Security Law, forms a crucial "Neptune's needle" in the process of Hong Kong's Basic Law Meaning, from this point onwards, the two systems truly no longer exist Whether in the mainland or Hong Kong, implementing whole-process democracy, it all becomes one country in the end Honestly speaking, "One Country, Two Systems" Is very difficult to implement in a country with a republican system Because in a republic, the highest power belongs to the central government, at the national level All local autonomous systems below it do not have a guaranteed existence of an autonomous society Moreover, when a local autonomous entity conflicts with the central government There isn't another arbitration institution to help resolve it Ultimately, central institutions solve the problem by overpowering the local, one country eventually overcomes two systems Theoretically, "One Country, Two Systems" could be realized in a country with a federal or confederal system For instance, in a federal system like the United States Where one country ultimately prevails over two systems In theory, "One Country, Two Systems" could be realized in a federal or confederal system In a federal system like in the United States Take New Jersey and Virginia, for example, both have their own constitutions They have an independent judicial system to adjudicate disputes between states That could very well achieve a "one country, two systems" scenario In fact, the United States, strictly speaking, is a country with multiple systems There's quite a big difference in legal conditions between different states But when it comes to issues between states, the Supreme Court decides But in China, there is no such system in place, no such guarantee So, from a certain perspective The failure of "one country, two systems" in China, and in Hong Kong, was somewhat inevitable This inevitability was triggered by the legislation of Article 23 Eventually leading to a huge, irreconcilable conflict Resulting in the sacrifice of Hong Kong's two systems, with one country completely taking over Hong Kong in the end It should be said, this is a very regrettable outcome To be honest, when Deng Xiaoping proposed "one country, two systems" I personally think he was quite sincere, but he probably didn't anticipate the complexity involved in operating such a system Of course, actually, under China's unified system Whether so-called local autonomy can truly become an autonomous system with two systems Largely depends on the central government's open-mindedness But unfortunately, such a system After being implemented for over two decades, finally reached its end I don't know how to evaluate the past 20+ years of Hong Kong Some people would blame Those in Hong Kong who fought for rights in the past for not knowing how to compromise Ultimately leading to an irreconcilable conflict More people blame the central government for not being open-minded enough to accommodate Hong Kong's two systems But regardless, this was a failed experiment And this failed experiment has inflicted damage On the development of rule of law and democracy in the entire Greater China region Hong Kong is now a sacrifice Because of this incident with Hong Kong, the mainland's International reputation has also suffered a lot You said 50 years unchanged, but after just over 20 years, you completely changed it And Taiwan, Taiwan has been scared off Right, so this whole situation In my view, is a lose-lose-lose situation For the mainland, Hong Kong, and Taiwan All have lost a chance that might have been a historic turning point Okay, I'll stop here today, thank you everyone Lastly, let's once again mourn for the rule of law, human rights, and freedom that Hong Kong once had 89 people attended 89 votes in favor Unanimously passed I declare the motion passed No No No No, passed
