Basic Law article 23 also requires HK to pass a national security law similar to the one that currently is so debated. They have not done for for the last 23(?) years.
Well BL 23 says HK will enact (on its own) a law to prevent sedition, treason against PRC. The comprehensiveness of such measures is where the present debate lies, and has since before the handover.
Recall that this was attempted prior to the handover and the PRC thought it insufficient. Sufficiency is in the eye of the beholder, and relative to the norms of each society, no?
The US has laws to prevent sedition and treason, but they are nowhere near what the PRC finds appropriate for their own country. HK’s cultural expectations are somewhat closer to the occidental norms than the expectations of China proper, it would seem.
Frankly, I think the expectation was (and for some people still may be) that China would become a more socialized (pardon the pun) citizen of the globe by 2047, rather than the angry and aggressive economic rescue dog they’re turning out to be, and so the threat of HK takeover by a repressive, totalitarian regime would have been moot. Sadly it’s not looking like China will normalize in this sense prior to the JD expiring, and in fact, China has explicitly stated that they disregard the binding nature of the JD, calling it a mere “historic document”, despite its contemporaneous binding nature.
Are you arguing that HK should adopt China’s security law and stop resisting?
Are you arguing China should have accepted HK’s proposal in the 90’s to fulfill BL 23?
Unclear what your point is. Oftentimes no law is preferable to bad law, given what’s at risk and a lack of compromise. Examples of this being “sufficient” are plentiful in any society where the people have a strong representation.
