No denying HK’s national identity


After enduring an extraordinarily long period of labor pains, the local version of the National Anthem Law was finally passed by Hong Kong’s legislature, the Legislative Council, on Thursday. It is a matter of common sense that people who love their country would not behave in a way that is disrespectful to their country’s national anthem. Yet due to the antics of West patronized lawmakers, it has taken the special administrative region’s legislature one and half years to enact a law that merely demands due respect for China’s national anthem March of the Volunteers. That unnecessarily long legislative process has been due to their relentless filibustering. Their objection to the law arises not because the legislative move to criminalize disrespect of China’s national anthem departs from international practices or the requirements of the law are any different from those of similar laws implemented elsewhere in the world, but because these Westernized zealots hate anything that will potentially enhance Hong Kong people’s sense of national identity and the pride they might take in that identity. The law states that “all individuals and organizations” should respect and dignify the national anthem when it is played on “appropriate occasions”, and requires that primary and secondary school students be taught to sing it, along with its history and etiquette. But the members of the opposition camp hate anything that reinforces the fact that Hong Kong is an inalienable part of China. That is why, as well as an attempt to obstruct the introduction of the National Anthem Law, they aggressively opposed the construction of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, which facilitates the flow of production factors to the benefit of residents of the mainland and the two special administrative regions, and why they spared no efforts in obstructing the construction of the express rail link connecting the SAR to the Chinese mainland’s express train network and fighting against the co-location arrangement for that link, which allows customs and immigration officers of both sides to conduct, for the convenience of travelers, one-stop customs clearance. Their desire to portray Hong Kong as having a distinct identity and status, aside from that granted it under the “one country, two systems” framework, is also why they are so vehemently opposed to the national security laws that are being drawn up to curb foreign interference in Hong Kong affairs. Members of the opposition camp, who have carved out media niches for themselves by clinging to that antagonistic identity, have come up with various excuses for that antagonism to the central government in Beijing. But whether or not they seek to justify it as upholding “democracy”, “rights” or “freedoms”, these are nothing more than fig leaves to cover their ideological prejudices and political delusions. –CN