BBC HARDtalk host Stephen Sackur got more than he bargained for when he interviewed Hong Kong’s convener of the Executive Council, Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee. Every allegation he made about Hong Kong in his program on Jan 22 was rebutted by Ip, a seasoned politician who knows how to handle an aggressive interviewer.

Sackur accused Ip of failing to pass Article 23 legislation — a piece of legislation that Hong Kong has the constitutional responsibility to enact under Article 23 of the Basic Law — in 2003 due to widespread local peaceful protests. But this was not her failure; it was a decision of the then-chief executive Tung Chee-hwa, who considered the need for more support within the Legislative Council to pass the bill. Ip explained that it was a matter of numbers in the legislature and that the administration needed more votes to pass the bill.

READ MORE: Envoys, biz leaders understand Article 23 legislation's need

The previous Article 23 legislative proposal was the baby of Ip: When it was launched in 2003, she was Hong Kong’s secretary for security, and it was her job to sell the bill. Together with other relevant officials, they campaigned by selling it to the various chambers of commerce and other significant organizations in Hong Kong.

Had the bill been passed, she told TVB’s Straight Talk on Feb 6, it would not have been necessary for the central government to promulgate the National Security Law for Hong Kong (NSL) in June 2020. The Article 23 legislation would have provided the tools needed for the Hong Kong authorities to arrest the rioters who nearly wrecked Hong Kong during the “black-clad” insurrection in 2019-20 and charge them with subversion and secession, which did not exist on the Hong Kong law books then. That would have ended the disturbances immediately without the need for the NSL. 

The 2019 “black-clad” riots relating to an axed extradition bill catalyzed decisive action against the influence of foreign forces in Hong Kong. Thousands took to the streets at the behest of the popular newspaper Apple Daily, known for its coverage of sex, gossip and horse racing. The newspaper turned to political issues as its main area of coverage, and the newspaper’s proprietor, Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, is currently facing charges of conspiring to collude with foreign forces, among other offenses.

Sackur said to Ip that the protesters were seeking democracy, not independence. Ip responded that universal suffrage was provided for in the Basic Law and would come “in an orderly and timely manner”. Still, the protests were about “Hong Kong independence”, and they tried to topple the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government and asked for a regime change. The government was confronted with a violent insurrection, plain and simple. 

Throughout the 24-minute program, Sackur continued with his slur on the HKSAR and China as a whole, which Ip calmly objected to and rebutted each time as false, uninformed and unfair. Her statesmanship on the program was that of an informed politician. But like many in the West, Sackur was not swayed by Ip’s explanations and finished his show with “Oh, well …”

Since 2014, during the reign of the “Umbrella Movement” or “Occupy Central” movement, the prequel to the 2019 “black-clad” riots, there is evidence that the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a branch of the US Department of State, was channeling funds into Hong Kong as revealed by its annual reports to US Congress. This money went to the University of Hong Kong, where associate law professor Benny Tai Yiu-ting orchestrated the “Occupy Central” anti-government movement, and to the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions, which was behind a failed mass demonstration and walkout of nurses at the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in Hong Kong. Student activist Joshua Wong Chi-fung was an ally of Tai, as published photographs showed, and Wong also established contact with the then-political unit chief of the US Consulate General in Hong Kong, Julie Eadeh, and other staff in the consulate. Wong was invited to an NED-funded seminar in Thailand but was denied entry by the Thai authorities. Between 1995 and 2013, the Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor received more than $1.9 million in funds from the NED. In 2014, the NED directed and funded the opposition and young radicals in orchestrating the illegal “Occupy Central” movement.

ALSO READ: Why legislation of Article 23 will ensure better development of HK

From 2014 to 2020, Hong Kong was in its darkest period since its return to China as foreign forces influenced vulnerable groups to create havoc in the city. They aimed to destroy China’s “golden egg” and contain China’s rise. The 2019 riots showed how penetrable Hong Kong was to foreign influence, and new measures must be put in place to ensure this never happens again. Thus, the NSL and Article 23 legislation are needed to tighten Hong Kong’s laws and security.

At a news conference announcing the start of the monthlong public consultation exercise on the proposed Article 23 legislation on Jan 30, Secretary for Security Chris Tang Ping-keung said that “external interference” in Article 23 refers to illegal activities carried out by local residents collaborating with foreign entities through improper means, such as making false statements or resorting to violence or coercion to influence the central or HKSAR governments in the formulation of policies or during elections.

With anti-China elements no longer in the Legislative Council and the threat of foreign influence still lurking in the shadows, the bill to be introduced to enable Article 23 legislation will likely be passed and Hong Kong will remain a safe and stable place that facilitates commerce and investment as usual.

The author is a former chief information officer of the Hong Kong government, a public relations and media consultant, and veteran journalist.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.