"China's appointment of a top intelligence official to run Hong Kong's
national security regime underscores its determination to tighten its
grip on the financial hub, according to diplomats and analysts." Thus began a Reuters piece out today, whose co-author (along with Greg Torode), James Pomfret, introduced on Twitter with a "This will send a shiver" quote.
"Dong Jingwei, 59, is the highest-level Chinese security official to be
appointed to a senior role in the former British colony since Beijing
imposed a national security law on its most international city in 2020." He was formerly vice-minister in the Ministry of State Security, China's most powerful intelligence organisation.
"Dong's
appointment comes as Hong Kong prepares to bolster its national security regimen with a new law, called Article 23, that Hong Kong
officials say will encompass espionage and treason among other offences
not covered in the 2020 legislation." Adding to the ominousness of it all: "In
an essay published last July in a journal dedicated to President Xi
Jinping's thinking on the rule of law, Dong said "Western forces" had
been instigating a "colour revolution" in Hong Kong, and the security
law had been vital to restore order." So, yeah, he's one of those who (officially) buys into/perpetuates that "colour revolution" view of the Hong Kong pro-democracy protests and movement.
Further along in the piece is this: ""The appointment of such a powerful intelligence figure as Dong to take
charge in Hong Kong is a bit of surprise," said one Asian envoy." That same unnamed envoy also said this: "The government is trying to show it is open for international business
but this will send a shiver and raises fresh questions about the future
operating environment."
Ironically, just a few days ago, Hong Kong Twitter was abuzz with speculation -- and, hope in some quarters -- in the wake of "A political blogger in Mainland China [having] published an article criticising the arbitrary and widespread use of National Security Law threats in Hong Kong, even to deal with legitimate criticisms of officials' incompetence." (Link to the original text (in Chinese), which is still up, here.) And at the beginning of this week, the Big Lychee, Various Sector's Hemlock brought to attention a Union of Catholic Asian (UCA) News piece that also discussed the piece by Jinghaihou, a mainland Chinese blogger who's a former columnist for a Beijing-backed newspaper in Hong Kong.
The UCA News article's main story was actually about the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) eyeing "full control" of Hong Kong and that its Hong Kong "work office" will "deploy of the governing power of the central government" in Hong Kong,
"maintain national security," under the Beijing-imposed National
Security Law and ""supporting" the integration" of Hong Kong with the rest of China. But sections of it were devoted to reporting that there appeared to be a (growing?)
sense, even within the pro-Beijing ranks, that the repression in Hong Kong has gone too far.
"Jinghaihou
alleged that “Hong Kong is losing its uniqueness under the national
security law… there are fears the city has lost its luster. It is
neither special nor a particularly attractive destination and has been
marginalized on the international stage... "Since the implementation of the National Security Law in Hong Kong, a
small number of people have gotten into the habit of overdoing the
implementation of some policies... of mechanically implementing the
government's decisions”, he wrote.
And, the UCA News article pointed out, Jinghaihou's was not the only critical voice. For: "Even
the pro-Beijing Sing Tao Daily newspaper on July 11 published an article
hitting out at local officials for their "excessive leftism" and
calling for a balance between national security, and the need for
investment, human rights, and freedom."
Of course, there are people who think all this is irrelevant. As Johnny Lau, a current affairs commentator, sees it: "Unless there is a long period of easing back, one or two articles are
hardly going to change anyone's perception of tightening controls". For the most part, I see his point. At the same time though, it's interesting to even see such articles appearing.
It's not so much that their contents are startling. As Bloomberg's Matthew Brooker (now based in England but still keeping his eyes on Hong Kong) Tweeted: "What [Jinghaihou] is saying [is] what everyone who loves Hong Kong has been saying for three years now - that over-zealous application of the national security law is destroying the city’s uniqueness".
Brooker noted the following in his thread: "If [Jinghaihou] was a democracy activist saying these things, he would be denounced by the authorities as a China hater, an agent of foreign enemies, and a supporter of “black-clad violence”. Which tells you something about where Hong Kong is right now". But, I'm inclined to think as well, also says something in that he's not.
As Brooker goes on to speculate: "Will [Jinghaihou's piece] be scrubbed from the Chinese internet, and will there be consequences for the writer? If not, it will appear that [those ruling Hong Kong are] being given a coded message - to tone down the Cultural Revolution rhetoric…" "And actions that are doing so much damage to the city". Re that last bit: of that we sadly are certain. Which is why the news of Dong Jingwei's appointment will have sent a shiver around many sectors of, and quarters in, Hong Kong. :(
No comments:
Post a Comment