The article is part of the 'Hong Kong Anti-extradition Demonstrations: One Year Ago Today' initiative which aims to raise awareness for the movement and also to debunk some myths regarding the movement’s origins and core elements.

23 years since the handover and already the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ model has reached an apparent collapse on all fronts. Set to expire in 2047, the system was formed alongside Hong Kong’s mini-constitution, the Basic Law, which guarantees the people of Hong Kong semi-autonomous rule as a special administrative region of China for 50 years. Having previously rejected suggestions to change its immigration rules specific to the former colony, Britain’s recent show of willingness to offer an ‘exit package’ for the people of Hong Kong is indicative of the severity of the current situation. Hong Kong has had its fair share of uncertainties throughout its history. Having previously faced two regime changes in China, World War II, Korean War, 1967 Riots and the 1997 handover, Hong Kong has always come out on top against the odds. However, China’s most recent implementation of the National Security Bill threatens to compromise all of the city’s long-standing merits.

China, sometimes referred to as the ‘giant neighbour’ or the ‘motherland’, has always been anxious to exercise control over the territory. In 1967, the Chinese Communist Party-backed local pro-Communists in their struggle against British Colonial Rule, which coincided with the Cultural Revolution. What followed its political upheaval was a crackdown on left-wing groups by the colonial government on one hand and socio-political reforms on the other. Marked by a period of political instability, the end of the Maoist Era witnessed Hong Kong's revival in its involvement in China, assisting the country’s attempt to salvage its economy that is known as Reform and Opening Up. Due to its edge in economic development and strength of socio-economic infrastructures, Hong Kong offered an apparent solution to China's economic backwardness at the time and was demanded its return from Britain. These actions were met with suspicion from Hong Kongers, many of whom had been refugees during China’s previous regime changes, and triggered the start to its first emigration wave in the 1980s. Due to its unique status, Hong Kong came to be known as the freest city in “Greater China” and had helped student leaders flee following the Tiananmen Massacre in 1989. Whilst maintaining a close economic partnership with China, British Hong Kong seemed to view China with a sense of unease and distrust. However, despite the transfer of the territory, the public sentiment of Hong Kong failed to change.

2003 was the first instance that this unease erupted. The Anti-Subversion Bill, or more commonly known as Article 23, was met with massive street protests. Although the city’s mini-constitution, the Basic Law, states that the city shall enact laws to protect national security, scepticism of it being used to suppress opposition to the Central Government and the city’s liberties escalated into a 500,000-people march that forced the government to back down. In the following decade, Hong Kong’s ties with its ‘motherland’ strengthened as the two economies became more and more connected. Despite considerable economic benefits, its close economic partnership further fuelled long-standing sentiments of suspicion and unease. China’s attempt at implementing ‘patriotic education’ in the city in 2012 in a bid to assimilate the youngsters, was again met with public outcry. The tightening of grip over the territory was furthered in 2014 as the Central Government announced its decision regarding plans for political reforms in Hong Kong. Whilst these plans granted universal suffrage for the Chief Executive Election, its candidates were to be vetted by an election committee that is controlled by pro-Beijing figures. This sparked the Umbrella Movement, an occupation movement that lasted 81 days that ultimately failed as political reforms stagnated. The “One Country, Two System'' model began to fully breakdown in 2016 as the local government disqualified multiple pro-democracy lawmakers, with localists and successionists being unseated for meddling oaths during the swear-in ceremony, which is seen as an insult to Beijing. The move was intended to discourage open challenges to the central government. This marked the start of its open intervention in the city’s legislature, eroding Hong Kong’s already crippling autonomy.

The complete breakdown of the social contract started with the Extradition Bill Crisis in 2019. The ‘responsive government’ model inherited from the colonial era collapsed entirely when Carrie Lam repeatedly refused to accept the demands of the protestors, while heavy-handedly suppressing the movement with tear gas, rubber bullets and sometimes real rounds. The public consultation system established in the 1970s again collapsed as government representatives repeatedly refused to sit-in in the proceedings of the District Council now controlled by the Pro-democracy faction.

Read more about the Extradition Bill, its implications and its significance in relation to the ‘Hong Kong problem’ in the Opinion piece, ‘One Year Ago Today: Hong Kong’s Extradition Bill’.

The Hong Kong Government is also on its way to place the city’s education system under greater control as Carrie Lam vowed to overhaul the system that she blames for fuelling the protests. The Liberal Studies curriculum that touches upon subjects like rule of law, civic and political participation and the city’s identity is described by Carrie Lam to be “poisoning” the younger generation. The History curriculum had also come under close scrutiny. The Education Bureau forced Hong Kong’s public exam board to cancel a question referring to the Sino-Japanese relations in the first half of the 20th century. It is seen to be enforcing a historical narrative that Japan only did harm in China during that period, which could be a sign that the government has plans to promote a more favourable narrative towards the history of Communist China. These two curricula were both designed by the Hong Kong government more than a decade ago to develop critical thinking but now the government is turning its back on its own policies as they are now deemed inconvenient.

Other liberties are also under severe attack in Hong Kong. The freedom of the press has reached a historic low, ranking 80 out of 180 survey countries in the 2020 World Press Freedom Index, down from 18 in 2002. Reporters without Borders attributes the decline to pressure from Beijing, citing cases of violence against the media, mainly by the police and pro-Beijing criminal gangs, during 2019 protests, and the expulsion of Financial Times Asia editor Victor Mallet in Oct 2019. The Liaison Office also owns the largest publishing agent and the three largest bookstore chains in Hong Kong. In 2015, the owners of Causeway Bay Bookstore, an independent bookstore that sold political books that are considered sensitive and banned in China, disappeared one by one and were later found under Chinese custody. Gui Min-hai, one of the owners, was smuggled into China from Thailand. While Li Bo, taken away from a warehouse in Chai Wan, Hong Kong, was similarly smuggled across the border. Despite some involved parties claiming that they went to China willingly, concerns over coercion into silence remain. China and the Hong Kong government can easily, and is actively controlling the dissemination of information, and its efforts will only continue to grow as the city becomes increasingly authoritarian with the power given by the new national security legislation.

The Basic Law, the city’s mini-constitution, became a document that can be overturned regularly by the Central and Hong Kong Government, marking the official end of rule of law. The Hong Kong Liaison Office, Beijing’s outpost in Hong Kong, has said it has right to handle Hong Kong affairs, as provided by the constitution and Basic Law, despite the article 22 of the document stipulating that ‘no department of the Central People’s Government and no province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the Central Government may interfere in the affairs which the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region administers on its own in accordance with this Law’. China also promised that the office will not be supervising the Hong Kong Government in 2000. The Communist Party’s disregard for its own obligations is further evident with the central government saying the Sino-British Joint Declaration, a legally binding agreement registered at the United Nations, is merely a historical document. More recently, Beijing claims that the joint declaration was a “unilateral policy announcement by China, not a promise from China to the UK, even less so a so-called international commitment”.

The announcement of National Security Law might have been a shock to some people but its legislations are mere continuations of policies that are already in place. The legislation would ban “any acts or activities” that endanger China’s national security, including separatism, subversion and terrorism – charges often used in mainland China to silence dissidents and other political opponents. The vague definitions of national security would likely be used as a broad excuse to suppress all forms of opposition. Demonstrations and rallies could be banned citing this new law, even though the Hong Kong Police Force has already banned multiple rallies since last year, citing reasons like ‘possible risks of violence’, and more recently COVID-19, despite the pandemic’s subsidence in the city. Freedom of association and speech has already come under significant danger, as police brutality against protestors, both peaceful and violent, are reported on an extremely regular basis. The likely effect of self-censorship on the media will only worsen the dire situation faced by journalists and the remaining media outlets supporting the opposition. Perhaps rather than being assaulted and condemned by Hong Kong Police, entities of the proposed national security agencies under the new legislation will be conducting these roles instead. The proposed agencies will be allowed to operate in Hong Kong freely which essentially places Hong Kong under the direct rule of the Central Government. Furthermore, Reuters revealed that foreign judges would not be allowed to be involved in the trials related to the National Security Law. Many independent and renowned judges from other common law jurisdictions reside in Hong Kong’s judicial system, making it one of the city’s key merits. However, this new arrangement would only continue to erode the rule of law and independence of the judiciary.

Read more about the National Security Bill and its implications in the News piece, ‘Hong Kong’s National Security Law: 'Autonomy at its End'

Hong Kong’s status as Asia’s international financial centre may also cease. Whilst US President Donald Trump has recently announced plans to sanction Hong Kong, business confidence has also waned as Hong Kong’s former merits like rule of law and freedom will likely come to an end. A further brain drain might occur as some Hong Kong people seek to escape the new reality. However, as Chinese corporations return to Hong Kong amid worsening Sino-American relations, its position as China’s financial centre might continue for a while; until foreign and Chinese investors no longer believe Hong Kong is different to Shanghai and Shenzhen.

Read more about Trump's economic sanctions on China and other foreign government reactions in the Insight piece, ‘The ‘Limp and Inane’ versus the ‘Outspoken’: Foreign Government Reactions to the Hong Kong Anti-Extradition Demonstrations and Whether They Have Changed Since’.

The long history of Hong Kong’s concerns over China’s dominance is finally brought to light by the National Security Law. Rule by fear begins in Hong Kong as China ultimately ditches its attempt to win over Hong Kong People, adopting an iron-fist approach similar to those in Tibet and Xinjiang. However, the city’s unique identity will live on in the hearts of those who remain in the city, and those who take refuge in foreign countries. As the idea that China is ‘the other’ lives on, some might think that Hong Kong is being colonized the second time; this time under the guise of integrating with ‘motherland’ instead of ‘civilization’.

Note that opinions expressed in the article above do not represent the overall stance of Asiatic Affairs, Students' Union UCL or University College London. If you have read something you would like to respond to, please get in touch with uclasiaticaffairs@gmail.com.

Editors' Note: As a blanket disclaimer for the entire ‘Hong Kong Anti-Extradition Demonstrations: One Year Ago Today’ initiative, we will not be disclosing the identities of any of the contributors to the initiative. We thank everyone who has submitted a piece of their own work and we apologise for not being able to openly accredit you for your contributions.