Pro-Beijingers Completely Out of the Loop

Beijing kept the national security law under wraps from HK

It is shocking to read in an article today in the paper that pro-Beijing politicians had no idea the national security law bombshell was going to be dropped until 48 hours beforehand.

They apparently only knew about it after they arrived in Beijing for the "two sessions", the annual session of the nation's legislature that had been postponed until May because of the coronavirus pandemic.

The NPC voted for the national security bill

In addition, they only had 48 hours to submit their views earlier this week about the impending law that is being drafted.

On Friday the liaison office reported having received 130 piece of written feedback from local deputies from the National People's Congress and the Chinese People's Consultative Conference.

Many local deputies believed they had little room to make substantive changes to the national security law, as the matter was out of Hong Kong's hands.

The only thing Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor hinted was that a new institution that Hong Kong had to set up would likely fall under the charge of the police force, which is why police chief Chris Tang Ping-keung was in Beijing with Lam this week.

One of the 36 deputies who went to Beijing via Shenzhen to take the Covid-19 test, said: "When we received the agenda on the afternoon of May 21, the bill was still unnamed on the paper. Beijing's liaison office head Luo Huining then appeared and told us briefly that it was about national security. We still didn't know clearly how it could be done."

The liaison office was mum on the announcement

Another NPC deputy had no idea the announcement of the national security bill would be made, though he had heard rumours that Beijing had been studying ways to introduce some form of a national security law according to Article 23 of the Basic Law following last year's protests.

Some CPPCC delegates said they had seen media reports about the possibility of Article 23 being pushed forward before they met Chinese officials that evening.

"I was caught off guard. I had been prepared to talk about Article 23 at the upcoming CPPCC meeting, which would have made me look like a fool if I failed to change my script," a delegate said. "The whole thing was airtight. I think Beijing didn't trust us and didn't risk leaking the news."

That comment is a damning indictment against the pro-establishment bloc in Hong Kong. Beijing didn't take any chances of giving them even a heads-up for fear that it might be leaked or there might be some opposition. It was a done deal right from the beginning and they had no choice but to fall into line.

The NPC delegates finally got to see the resolution on May 22 and then it was voted on on May 28 with 2,878 for drafting the national security law, and one against.

While the delegates were only given 48 hours to submit feedback on the law, it's hard to write something when you don't know exactly what will be in it.

"I believe Beijing has already drafted the law, based on different scenarios," one delegate said.

Meanwhile university presidents, banks and businesses are being pulled into line to support the law, despite not knowing any details about it and how it pertains to them. It's hard to fathom how someone can personally endorse something they haven't even seen -- how can they do that in good conscience?

But Beijing demands complete loyalty and no one wants to mess with that which is why Hongkongers are figuring out their exit plans. They probably would have left already had it not been for the pandemic still raging and now riots in the United States over the death of George Floyd.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is still ironing out details how those holding BNO passports can come into the UK, but they may not be allowed in unless under dire circumstances.

When will we reach that point and what will that look like?

So many questions but in the meantime we are all waiting with baited breath to see what's in this new law and how compatible (if at all) it is to the Basic Law. If not it renders Hong Kong's judiciary completely useless and the city has no foundation to stand on as a financial hub.