The Darkest Day in Hong Kong (so far)

The 2003 protest against Article 23 had half a million people turn out

At around 3.30pm the skies in Beijing suddenly turned very dark. It was very ominous, just as the two sessions were about to begin in the Chinese capital.

Then later in the afternoon word came from Beijing that the National People's Congress will put through legislation to enact Article 23, the national security law that will ban all seditious activities aimed at toppling the central government and interfering in Hong Kong's affairs.

It will be proposed tomorrow and will be voted on on May 28, thus completely bypassing Hong Kong's Legislative Council; in other words, "one country, two systems" is dead in Beijing's eyes. The Basic Law means nothing.

“This is the end of #HongKong, this is the end of 'One Country, Two Systems'.” https://t.co/Tg28B6uBEV pic.twitter.com/oDzqvneIul

— Richard Pyne (@richardjpyne) May 21, 2020

The central government has been waiting since 1997 to pass this contentious law, only to have it shelved in 2003 when half a million people came out in the streets to protest against it, resulting in Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa retreating with his tail between his legs, and his then security chief Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee leaving the city for a few years to study a masters degree in East Asian Studies at Stanford University.

This afternoon the skies went ominously black suddenly

Fast forward to 2014 after Beijing decided that in electing the next Hong Kong chief executive, China would choose the three candidates, which erupted into the Umbrella Movement, an unprecedented occupation of parts of the city that were paralyzed for 79 days, but did not resolve anything.

And then last year no one could have predicted the protests against the extradition bill would manifest into a massive anti-government movement that had peaceful marches of over 2 million people that later led to violent clashes between protesters and the police. The authorities used lawfare, or the law to prosecute everyone from pan-democratic politicians to youngsters. Calling protesters rioters meant that if convicted, they could be in jail for 10 years. And yet they continued to come out and voice their dissatisfaction with the government.

Meanwhile it became more and more obvious Beijing was involved, and Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor was only going through the motions. And when on July 1 Legco was stormed, and then July 21, when the national emblem at the liaison office was splashed with black paint, Beijing's patience was worn down to threads.

Last year's protest march in June drew 2 million people out

For a country that likes to play the long game, waiting 23 years for the national security law to be passed in Hong Kong seems relatively short, but perhaps Beijing wants to lay down the law now to show who's boss, or terrified of the city descending into chaos and thinks this law will set its residents straight.

But for us in Hong Kong it's a shock and sadness that we are powerless to do anything about this, that Beijing never intended to uphold "one country, two systems" or the Basic Law. The Hong Kong as we know it will change forever.

Beijing is using the pandemic to push through this legislation as quickly as possible to avoid criticism from other countries that are too busy tending to those infected with the virus (that seems to have originated from Wuhan).

How will we Hongkongers move forward? Should we even stay here anymore? Many have been asking this question in the last few days. While some had thought of emigrating because of the protests, the rest of us were willing to stick it out. But what now?

The end of the British Empire in Hong Kong in 1997

We are the frogs in the water that is already boiling. It's not a good sign.

I remember June 30, 1997. Despite the heavy rain that drenched Prince Charles, Hong Kong had such a party atmosphere; looking back it was naive at the time. Hotels and restaurants had an excuse for two parties, one British-themed, the other Chinese. But what did it all mean after July 1, 1997?

It actually seemed fine, business as usual. People even came back to Hong Kong, lured by business and job opportunities.

But now, 23 years later, what has happened? How did we get here? And what do we do now?