On May 30, Hong Kong’s High Court ruled in a significant case that 14 people had violated the offense of subversion under the National Security Law for Hong Kong (NSL). 

Another 31 people involved in the case had previously pleaded guilty. These 45 individuals had all participated in the illegal “primary elections” in July 2020, planned by anti-China political radicals and external forces, mainly Western countries.

In mid-2019, the anti-China insurrectionists and external forces instigated one of the most significant and violent riots in Hong Kong’s history on the grounds of opposing the extradition amendment bill proposed by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government, thus creating a political atmosphere that favored them.

Against this background, they organized the “primary elections” with the aim of producing a group of candidates who would win a majority in the Legislative Council election slated for September 2020.

Ignoring the warnings from HKSAR and central government officials, the insurrectionists treated this law with contempt and a sense of opportunism; they persisted in executing their plan to grab power

According to the plan announced on social media by the ringleader, Benny Tai Yiu-ting (then an associate professor of law at the University of Hong Kong), they would then repeatedly and indiscriminately veto the budget proposed by the HKSAR government to force one or more chief executives to step down, thereby creating chaos and social instability in the SAR, which they hoped would force the central government to crack down on the insurrectionists, causing bloodshed that would give Western countries an excuse to intervene in Hong Kong affairs and impose severe sanctions on China. Their ultimate objective was to force Beijing to concede to their demands for “democratic reforms” that would allow them to eventually seize the governance power of the HKSAR and turn it into a subversion base that would endanger China’s security.

The kernel of the plan to seize power was to destroy Hong Kong’s political system and order. As an SAR of China, the common goal of Hong Kong’s executive branch and LegCo is to ensure the comprehensive and accurate implementation of the “one country, two systems” policy in Hong Kong, promote the city’s prosperity and stability, and safeguard national security.

To this end, the Basic Law requires the executive and LegCo to check, balance and cooperate, with the emphasis on cooperation. In this spirit, members of LegCo must not abuse the council’s power to veto government bills and budget proposals in order to obstruct or paralyze the administration of the HKSAR government. On the other hand, the HKSAR government should not abuse its power to issue executive orders, bypass the legislative process, or sideline the legislature to formulate laws and regulations to implement policies.

The central authorities promulgated and implemented the NSL in June 2020 to end the chaos created by the anti-extradition campaign in the city. Article 22 of the NSL stipulates: “A person who organizes, plans, commits or participates in any of the following acts by force or threat of force or other unlawful means with a view to subverting the State power shall be guilty of an offence: 

(1) overthrowing or undermining the basic system of the People’s Republic of China established by the Constitution of the PRC; 

(2) overthrowing the body of central power of the PRC or the body of power of the HKSAR; 

(3) seriously interfering in, disrupting, or undermining the performance of duties and functions in accordance with the law by the body of central power of the PRC or the body of power of the HKSAR; or 

(4) attacking or damaging the premises and facilities used by the body of power of the HKSAR to perform its duties and functions, rendering it incapable of performing its normal duties and functions.”

Tai’s master plan was formulated before the promulgation of the NSL but was endorsed and put into practice by the insurrectionists after its implementation, blatantly violating the NSL.

Ignoring the warnings from HKSAR and central government officials, the insurrectionists treated this law with contempt and a sense of opportunism; they persisted in executing their plan to grab power. They were eventually prosecuted by the HKSAR government and subsequently convicted by the court. Undeniably, they have only themselves — because of their foolhardiness and defiance — to blame.

Therefore, the NSL is a relatively mild, pragmatic and wise way to combat internal and external hostile forces, protect Hong Kong’s executive-led political system, and restore its political order. Most Hong Kong residents have supported this approach

In the political environment where febrile anti-government sentiment was raging at that time, if the central government had not promulgated the NSL promptly, the insurrectionists and their Western patrons could have succeeded with their power-seizing plan. If this were the case, several results could have ensued: 

(1) The HKSAR would not have been effectively governed, and could have fallen into a state of anarchy, political turmoil, social division and stagnant development. 

(2) External forces could have taken advantage of the situation, and the city could have become a bridgehead manipulated by Western countries to contain and attack China. 

(3) The patriotic forces could have been suppressed, and their power shrunk and marginalized. The principle of “patriots administering Hong Kong” could have become just a pipe dream. 

(4) The practice of “one country, two systems” could have been seriously distorted and unviable. 

(5) There could have been severe conflicts between the executive and the legislature. The good executive-legislative relationship required by the Basic Law could have come to nothing, and Hong Kong’s political system would not have functioned normally and effectively.

Without the NSL, the HKSAR could not have reversed the chaotic situation and would have had no alternative but to ask the central government to come to the rescue.

According to Article 18 of the Basic Law, when the central authorities “decide that the Region is in a state of emergency, the Central People’s Government may issue an order applying the relevant national laws in the Region”.

The central government might, by Article 14 of the Basic Law, dispatch troops to maintain public order at the request of the HKSAR government. The central government could also use its “comprehensive jurisdiction” over Hong Kong to amend the Basic Law to reduce the powers and functions of LegCo, making it difficult for it to obstruct the operation of the administrative agencies. However, all these measures are too draconian and could easily have undermined both Hong Kong residents’ and the international community’s confidence in “one country, two systems” and the central government. These measures would also have allowed hostile forces at home and abroad to take the opportunity to smear the HKSAR and China as a whole. Such developments would be precisely what the insurrectionists and their Western patrons craved.

Therefore, the NSL is a relatively mild, pragmatic and wise way to combat internal and external hostile forces, protect Hong Kong’s executive-led political system, and restore its political order. Most Hong Kong residents have supported this approach. The NSL also lays the foundation for thoroughly reforming Hong Kong’s electoral system and ensuring that “patriots administering Hong Kong” in the future. The Hong Kong High Court’s verdict on this case has certainly punished the relevant offenders according to the law. Still, the ruling has a more critical effect in clarifying the operating model of the HKSAR’s political system, especially the executive-legislative relationship. A situation in which the abuse of power by LegCo paralyzes the government and instigates political disorder would not appear. In this way, the significant contribution of the NSL is to safeguard national security and protect the political system and political order of the HKSAR.

The author is a professor emeritus of sociology, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, and a consultant for the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macao Studies.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.