TVB's Straight Talk presenter Eugene Chan (left) interviews senior counsel and non-official member of the Executive Council, Ronny Tong on April 2, 2024. (PROVIDED TO CHINA DAILY)
Senior counsel and non-official member of the Executive Council, Ronny Tong, is on the show this week. As a seasoned politician in Hong Kong, Tong gives his perspective on the legislating process of the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, and how the law can protect national security while maintaining Hong Kong’s freedom.
Check out the full transcript of TVB’s Straight Talk host Dr Eugene Chan’s interview with Ronny Tong:
Chan: Good evening! I'm Eugene Chan and we're on Straight Talk where we delve deep into the pressing issues, shaping Hong Kong's present and future. I'm delighted to have with me today, senior counsel Ronny Tong. With his extensive experience as a Legislative Council member, chairman of the Hong Kong Bar Association and current non-official member of the Executive Council, Tong brings invaluable insights to our discussions. Today's episode is titled “Is Hong Kong ready to move forward?” as we explore the implications of the recent developments particularly, the enactment of safeguarding national security ordinance under Article 23 of the Basic Law. Welcome, Ronny!
Tong: Hi.
Chan: Ronny, very happy to have you on the show.
Tong: Thank you.
Chan: You know, Hong Kong has finally passed her own national security legislation under Article 23 of the Basic Law a fortnight ago. And it's called the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance. It has been quite a journey. The Legislative Council passed it on March 19. The chief executive, John Lee, has signed it off and then it came into force officially on Saturday 23rd of March. So, CE was saying that it was a historic moment because it took us a rather long time, overdue by 26 years, eight months and 19 days. Do you agree?
Tong: Yes, I think frankly, myself and most of my friends would rather see the back of Article 23 legislation. It has been troubling us for so long … over two decades. And we finally did it and I'm hoping as I think most of my friends do the same, that will be the end of it. Reason being Article 23 legislation is a national security legislation. If having passed the legislation, it will never be used, that means that Hong Kong is safe and our country is safe. If there are occasions where you actually have to execute under the law that means that the society is not stable and then national security is under challenges. It is not good news, if we ever have to use the law.
Chan: Right, Ronny before we go further, I'm sure the viewers will want to know more because you have a very good, strong legal background, and you were a legislator. So, someone said that the entire process, say, took 50 days. So, can you tell the viewers what actually happened?
Tong: Well, I don't quite know frankly because you know, I'm no longer involved with LegCo. But the chief executive has openly said that the sooner we pass the law, the better. And I tend to agree with him because as I say, we'd rather see the back of it, you know, as soon as we can. I feel a lot of people want to focus on how long it took to pass a law whether the procedure is too quick, too compressed? I appreciate that kind of concern. But to me, the quality of any law is not going to be judged by how quickly it passed through the legislative process. If a law is good, that is good, whether it was passed in a week, a month or year. If the law is not good, even if it takes three years to pass it, it will still not be a good law right.
Chan: So that was ...
Tong: The important thing is to look at the contents of the law to see whether it is reasonable, whether it is on par with international standards and how it affects people in Hong Kong? I think you need to look at the entire law, piece of legislation globally. To come to a judgment whether it is an acceptable piece of legislation.
Right so that kind of answer some of the media claims that it was a rushed through piece of work. It was passed in record time, I agree with that. But the whole process was televised openly, everybody can see what happened. Everybody can watch the scrutiny of the bill during the Bills Committee stage. Legislators, by and large, are performing, you know, in a reasonable way. Rational questions were raised. Some of the suggestions were taken on board by the government which resulted in certain amendments to the bill. So, the entire process I would regard as rather normal. It is true, it took less time. But everybody was very focused, very hard working. So, at the end of the day, if you look at the end product, I don't think it is all that bad.
Chan: Actually, if you look at some statistics, it took like NSL 50 days including the consultative time of a month that had 13,000 submissions, which has 98.6 percent of support. And actually going back to the scrutiny... you can explain your smile in a minute... and we have over 1,000 questions being raised by the legislators having a clause by clause scrutiny. And I think they ended up with 91 amendments. So, they had 98 percent support and gave positive comments. Is that a true reflection of the community sentiments?
Tong: Well I think it is certain reflections. I accept that some people may disagree, but having been a legislator for some 13 years, over three terms. I can say that a lot of other legislations did not receive such close attention as we watch what happened here in relation to the bill, and certainly less time overall was spent in many legislations, although it took a longer period, but the time that it took us to scrutinise the bill and produce an end product at the end of the day, actually took less time.
Chan: Right. And one of the things people said the reason why we need Article 23 becoming … The Secretary for Security Chris Tang was on the show and he said that to complement the National Security Legislation that it covers the areas sedition, espionage, treason, theft of state secrets, as well as association with foreign political organizations. And one of the areas people talk about very much is the theft of state secrets. Does it bother you when people are concerned on that issue?
Tong: Well yes, I think the reason being national security laws are always at odds with individual rights. And people are always concerned as to where the lines are to be drawn. In relation to national secrets, not only individual rights are being affected, but possibly also with freedom of the press. And the press being a powerful stakeholder in the community, their voices are usually quite loud and they can create a lot of reaction from the community, by their reporting and by the views that they express, you know in the community. So, national secrets naturally become somewhat the focus of attention, both from the media point of view and from the community at large. So, I'm not surprised. But having said that, I think that people need to understand that the crime relating to unlawful disclosure of national secrets does not simply depend on whether something itself is a national secret. Of course you need to be a national secret but the important element is the unlawful obtaining of the national secret, stealing, for example, and the unlawful disclosure or improper disclosure of national secrets. Those are the important elements, which I feel the man in the street would have a very, very low chance of ever becoming involved with.
Chan: Ronny, you just mentioned in your statement that with national security law, it inevitably will make people think of their freedom of speech, freedom of thoughts, or whatever. So, do you think ... I mean, there is a lot of media on digital reading in the news that people are concerned about Hong Kong that with Article 23, people are not going to have the freedom anymore? Even posting stuff on Facebook, you've got to be extremely careful. So, what will you tell about the views of visitors from both overseas or even a Hong Kong resident, as a legal expert yourself? Do they have to be concerned?
Tong: Well, I think people need to understand a matter of first principle, which is that, what is the meaning of freedom? There is no freedom to harm your own country. Just as there is no freedom to kill somebody or to do harm to your fellow member of the community. So, when you do something like that, it can no longer be categorized as freedom. So, the only question is, where's the line going to be drawn? That is where your conduct would actually infringes the national security of your own country, and something which you're free to do, you know, in your own way, and people need to understand that the two things will never overlap, meaning that if it infringes national security, then naturally it cannot be regarded as a freedom. So, first of all people need to understand that every basic concept, once you understand that, then you begin to understand that national security law, although very often involves an argument as to whether individual rights would be affected, the question is whether the line to be drawn between protecting national safety and limiting your individual rights is a reasonable line to be drawn. And this is exactly where the so-called Charter of Human Rights which is an international Covenant on Civil and Political Rights expressly provided. Under the convention, your freedoms can be reasonably restricted on the ground of national security.
Chan: Alright, Ronny, let's take a break now, but viewers stay tuned. We'll be right back for more discussion on, "Is Hong Kong ready to move forward?"
Senior counsel and non-official member of the Executive Council, Ronny Tong (right) speaks on TVB’s Straight Talk program on April 2, 2024. (PROVIDED TO CHINA DAILY)
Chan: Welcome back to Straight Talk with Senior Counsel and non-official member of the Executive Council, Ronny Tong. So, Ronny, in the first half of the show, we were just on the part on freedom, and then you said that once people understand what is meaning of freedom, it’s not unrestrictive with national security, I think a lot of things will fall into places. So I think a very important thing we’d like to get your views on is now we are having this Safeguarding National Security Ordinance being enacted, and a lot of sort of Western media are saying that Hong Kong no longer has freedom, and it is very much like mainland China, and the fact that they are doing business in Hong Kong could be at the risk. So, how can you reassure them and the viewers in Hong Kong that our “one country, two systems” principle will still be continue to be in place, and will justify them to continue operating in Hong Kong and making their profit hopefully?
Tong: Well, Eugene, you may think that I am a little bit cynical, but having dealt with the Western media for quite a few years since 2019, I have come to the conclusion that they are all biased. To me, they lack credibility. They are simply repeating lies or misinformation every day. They accuse us of forsaking individual rights in Hong Kong, that we are like the rest of China. That is wholly untrue, because if you look at the Hong Kong National Security Law, and you look at the current Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, both legislations provide express provisions that the provisions of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, the human rights convention, should be respected and applicable to both laws. Both laws also contain express provisions saying the Rule of Law principles will apply. Now those two provisions in these two laws are not present on the mainland in relation to mainland national security laws. And that is a difference. The other difference is that we have a fiercely independent judiciary, and we are the only place on earth where we have foreign judges sitting on our Court of Final Appeal. And these are judges from very respectable background of common law countries, and they are the main gatekeepers. How can anybody in all honesty say that we are like the rest of China? Now the third thing I would like to say is that I personally come round to a view that I cannot succeed in correcting the mistake.
Even if I were to point out that they were all telling untruths or misinforming their own audience or the international audience. I don't think they will be able to change their way. I think sadly the geopolitical conflict between, say for instance, the United States and China, would not go away in the near future. It might even worsen. So, I think the only way in which we convince other people that the national security laws in Hong Kong are on par with international standard is look at what is going to happen hereafter. There is a saying in English, “The proof of the pudding is in the eating”, right? If we find that the laws are not being abused, the laws are not going to be misused for the purpose of stifling dissenting views politically, then people would understand the laws are proper legislations to safeguard national security. I dare say that in the case of the Hong Kong National Security Law, which has been enacted for around 3 years now …
Chan: Yes.
Tong: … there has not been any example of it being misused to stifle dissident views. All the cases are being openly tried, everybody can watch on television, can read newspapers about what is going on in the courts, all the judgments are set up, put on website, so that everybody all over the world can read them, can see the reasons of the judges. What sort of principles they rely on, what sort of evidence they rely on, and all these are being done openly. And nobody has ever dared to complain that any of the decisions of the convictions were bogus, in a sense that the judges were corrupt and they were not dishing out justice, but simply misusing the law in order to suppress dissent. There is simply not a strap of evidence that ever happening in Hong Kong.
Chan: Right. So, Ronny, you just mentioned the saying that better to try the pudding by eating it, rather than just waiting to see what is going to happen. Just like Chief Executive said one day we passed earlier, one day it is better for Hong Kong. And he said that we are going to concentrate our efforts into develop our economy, and also improve people's livelihood. You being a legal expert plus his camp right now, his advisors, what will you say will be the three most important things that he must do right now?
Tong: I think concentrating our efforts on economic development is important. I agree with the chief executive in that respect. But I also take the view that it is important to convince the international community that Hong Kong is a safe place to do business, for them to come over and to invest, whether in Hong Kong or in the Chinese mainland. And to convince them, we not only need to tell a good Hong Kong story, but to demonstrate with facts that the passage of the national security laws doesn't change our way of life, doesn't suppress unreasonably any individual rights. And Hong Kong is as much a prolific society as before. Now I think if we can show that the situation in Hong Kong does not change in that regard, it would help us to concentrate on development of our economy, and would be more convincing for the foreign investors that it is safe to come to Hong Kong to do business.
Chan: Right. So, what priorities do you think the chief executive should work on?
Tong: Well, I don’t think it is a question of priority. I think, obviously, priority is to spend more effort in developing our economy. But what I am saying is that we should not overlook the importance of demonstrating that the “one country, two systems” is alive and kicking, and it has not been harmed in any way by the passage of national security laws.
Chan: Right. I am sure you are familiar with Stephen Roach’s so-called wake-up call article that “Hong Kong is over!” So, what is your response to that? This is the first time I bring this topic on Straight Talk, and I think you’d be a good person to answer that.
Tong: There are so many people who have said in the past that Hong Kong is dying, or Hong Kong is dead, or the rule of law is dead, and there is no longer “one country, two systems”. Are we are still here? And I think everybody in Hong Kong would agree that we are still alive and kicking. So, for people who tend to say that Hong Kong is at the end or that we are dead, I will forgive them. I think that people need to come to Hong Kong to see for themselves, whether we are dead or we are very much alive.
Chan: So, that means you are very confident that Hong Kong will be back on our feet very soon hopefully?
Tong: Well, I think that we may be down, but we are not out.
Chan: Right. Something I want to ask you is about the Greater Bay Area. We have often talked about the Greater Bay Area, this is an area that we want to look at. Huge population, and we were looking forward to a lot of spending from across the border. But obviously, if you look at the market right now, it is not quite happening. Rather we have a lot of Hong Kong residents going up and enjoying the so-called cheaper alternatives. So, what are your thoughts on that?
Tong: Well, I think that any new development in this respect requires some time for things to settle down, for people to get used to the new environment. And I think that Shenzhen is attracting a lot of people going up north to spend their holidays, it is a good wake up call for Hong Kong, we need to be more competitive, we need to provide better service, we need to be more innovative in providing consumer products and consumer services, to not just people in Hong Kong, but to visitors. So, I think that in time, we will get more used to the environment of better connection with our neighboring cities, competition will take over, and we will still be back on our feet.
Chan: Right. So the answer to the title of our show, “Is Hong Kong ready to move forward?”, I assume …
Tong: We are ready to move forward as ever.
Chan: Thank you, Ronny, for your insights into the enactment of our new legislation, Safeguarding National Security Ordinance. This is indeed a significant milestone in our city's history, and now we need to move forward as Ronny has said, and work together towards a safer and more prosperous Hong Kong.
As ancient Chinese philosopher Laozi said, “When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be; when I let go of what I have, I received what I need”. Have a good evening and see you next week!
