Read Text A carefully and write an argumentative essay of about 600-700 words in response to the following question.
The National Security Law China imposed was considered as a violation of human rights and autonomy. On the other hand, some people believe it is beneficial to keep Hong Kong a safer place. Which view do you agree with? Use the information from the text below as well as your knowledge to support your arguments. When using the information from text A, you are expected to acknowledge the source of it.
Hire a Professional Essay & Assignment Writer for completing your Academic Assessments
Native Singapore Writers Team
- 100% Plagiarism-Free Essay
- Highest Satisfaction Rate
- Free Revision
- On-Time Delivery
Text A The Guardian view on Hong Kong: still fighting Hong Kong is not yet cowed. That was, unquestionably, Beijing’s aim in imposing the draconian National Security Law after a year of protests. The law has demolished the pledge to allow the region to maintain its freedoms until 2047. It has struck fear into the city. In the hours after it took effect, Demosisto, the pro-democracy party founded by young protesters including Joshua Wong, disbanded itself. Individuals deleted social media accounts. Yet Mr Wong was among thousands who took to the streets once more for the annual 1 July protest march, defying a ban. More than 370 were arrested, including at least nine under the new law – one a 15-year-old girl waving a Hong Kong independence flag.
Though the law is purportedly aimed at a small minority intent on separatism, subversion, terrorism and “collusion with foreign or overseas powers”, these are vaguely defined offences routinely used to punish dissent on the mainland. The intent of the law was made clear by the police’s own banners, which warned protesters that chanting or holding signs with calls for independence could constitute a crime. The new law is extraordinarily wide-ranging and frighteningly vague in its wording.
It allows people to be taken to the mainland, tried in party-controlled courts and locked up for life, for peacefully expressing political dissent. It appears to apply to anyone, whether or not they are a Hong Kong resident, and even if they are outside the region. Foreign companies will think much more carefully about doing business there. The chief executive will be able to pick judges, and trials can be held without juries and behind closed doors. Hong Kong police have greater powers of surveillance.
Chinese security services will be able to operate openly in Hong Kong, and will be immune from local laws. They will be tasked with “strengthening” the management of foreign NGOs and news organisations. Not only did Hong Kong’s people have no say in whether this legislation should be passed; they were not even allowed to see it until it had become law.
