Hong Kong/Macau duo – Macau Today

On February 18, 2019, the State Council of China officially announced the “Outline of the Overall Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area”, positioning Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Hong Kong and Macao as the main forces for regional development. Recently, the resolution of the Third Plenary Session of the 20th CPC Central Committee on Hong Kong and Macao proposed to “give full play to the institutional advantages of ‘one country, two systems’, consolidate and enhance Hong Kong’s status as an international financial center, shipping and trade hub. Support Hong Kong and Macao to become international high-quality talent training centers, improve logistics systems, and play a more decisive role in the country’s opening up to the outside world.

Five years have passed, and the achievements of Shenzhen and Guangzhou are obvious to all. The container transportation volume of the ports of these two cities has exceeded that of the Kwai Tsing Container Terminal in Hong Kong. After the opening of the “Shenzhen-Zhongshan Channel”, the role of Shenzhen Port has become increasingly important. But what about the other two main engines, Hong Kong and Macau?

On July 30, the Hang Seng Index in Hong Kong remained at 17,000 points, and despite the outstanding performance of Hong Kong athletes in the Paris Olympics, it failed to reverse the downward trend. With the implementation of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (hereinafter referred to as the Hong Kong National Security Law), the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall formulate its own laws on safeguarding national security in accordance with Article 23 of the Basic Law of Hong Kong, which stipulates that the improvement of the electoral system and district-level governance will inevitably move in the direction of “moving from stability to prosperity”. Unfortunately, the Hong Kong property market continues to decline, and the confidence of citizens has not yet recovered. What might be the reason behind all this? Perhaps the recent controversy surrounding an article can provide some clues to this question.

Professor Chen Wenwen, former Dean of the Faculty of Law of the University of Hong Kong and appointed lawyer, published a commentary entitled “Retrospective Effect” in Hong Kong’s Ming Pao on the 24th.

John Chan analyses the changes to Hong Kong’s National Security Law to increase the time for early release of people convicted of crimes endangering national security, and whether these changes are retroactive for unconvicted criminals. He argues that “defendants convicted of past crimes should not receive heavier sentences simply because current laws increase the penalties for such crimes. This principle is protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights”. The purpose of this opinion piece is to initiate a legal debate.

However, on the afternoon of the 24th, the Hong Kong Correctional Services Department immediately issued a press release strongly condemning Chan for publishing the article, saying that “the two points mentioned in the article and referred to as ‘controversial’ are inconsistent with the facts.” Article 7 of the National Security Law clearly defines “crimes endangering national security.” However, nothing written in the article falls within this definition, so “the Commissioner of Correctional Services has decided on his own to expand the scope of crimes endangering national security.”

Later, in an interview, Chan said: “Not long ago, our Chief Executive said that freedom of speech in Hong Kong was not restricted and the government could be criticized. But now we see a living example that simply expressing different opinions has been severely condemned by the government. How is this situation compatible with freedom of speech? Isn’t this what Jonathan Philip Chadwick Sumption, a former non-permanent judge of the Hong Kong High Court, was referring to when he retired early, when he said that the government had fallen into a state of prejudice and panic? ”

The incident of John Chan’s article reflects the lack of benign social interaction in Hong Kong’s transition from “stability to prosperity”, indicating that there is still a long way to go before full recovery, and society still relies on the spirit of “love and forgiveness”. Macau has not seen social conflicts similar to those in Hong Kong in recent years, but the impact of COVID-19 and the rapid changes in the political landscape have led to a significant decline in the possibility of expressing different opinions.

The Hengqin Guangdong-Macao Deep Cooperation Zone was originally an excellent plan, but unfortunately it has undergone unprecedented changes. With real estate as the main driver, the development of the Deep Cooperation Zone presents a “winter sowing” situation. The Macau government’s massive investment in the Deep Cooperation Zone has not achieved the expected results. Whether the Macau New District in the Deep Cooperation Zone can accommodate 60,000 urban residents in 2029 depends not on preferential treatment but on the economy. As the 25th anniversary of Macau’s return approaches, dog racing and horse racing have ended, and tax revenue from the gaming industry has declined, Chief Executive Ho Iat Seng may be thinking about the future of the Macao Special Administrative Region Government during the 39-day holiday.

After all, as the main drivers of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, Hong Kong and Macao must make adjustments quickly to keep up with the overall development of the Greater Bay Area!