Featured

The West’s fake narrative about National Security Law for HK

Published

5 years ago

July 3, 2020

John Okeke

On June 30, China’s top legislature, the Standing Committee of China’s 13th National People’s Congress passed the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR). Despite apocalyptic headlines on Western media predicting the end of Hong Kong since, many in the city have supported it on the basis that it would bring stability back. Regina Ip, a member of HK Executive Council and Legislative Council, shares her views with CGTN on why the law is much needed. She also argues that this event resembles many of those the city has been through in the past where, despite some people’s pessimistic prediction, the city was always able to continue being prosperous and successful. Opinions expressed in the video are hers, and not necessarily those of CGTN.

CGTN: Why has Beijing decided to enact the National Security Law for Hong Kong?

Ip: We have loopholes in our legislation. We don’t have the offense of subversion, secession, or laws against local terrorism, or laws against foreign and external interference. So we need to block these loopholes in our legal system.

Every country has a right to protect itself. The U.S. have at least 20 statutes targeting espionage, national security interception, external interference. It’s common for countries to have a full range of the necessary legislation.

And events in Hong Kong in the past year, pretty violent and pretty dangerous, clearly show that there are national security threats to China, including Hong Kong, and there are internal security issues in Hong Kong. So to object to the Chinese mainland taking actions to protect herself, as well as to help Hong Kong restore order, is totally unreasonable.

Western media and a lot of Western politicians have been spinning a fake narrative about what’s been happening in Hong Kong. They have romanticized law breakers like Joshua Wong, Nathan Law, Martin Lee as freedom fighters, democracy advocates. But what they have done in Hong Kong is really to suppress other people’s rights and freedoms, to damage property, and to tear apart the social fabric of our society. So Western media and a lot of Western politicians have shown, displayed, a highly biased and unfair view of Hong Kong, which we really need to keep rebutting.

CGTN: What would you say to those who believe the law will spell the end of “One Country, Two Systems?”

Ip: The death of “One Country, Two systems” has become a cliche. The foreign media has said at the time, before 1997, the Fortune magazine forecast the death of Hong Kong. But we have always bounced back.

I think the past few decades because of Hong Kong’s reunification, reabsorption into China, many have predicted that our separate lifestyle, separate systems will cease to exist.

In fact, in the past 40 years, there have been many crises of confidence and brain drain, people trying to emigrate. But those who left have all come back. The money which left has come back. Hong Kong continued to be prosperous and successful, despite some short-term setbacks.

So I believe that, in spite of some short-term worries about this new legislation, with the nation’s backing for Hong Kong, we will be able to bounce back economically, socially, and internationally.

CGTN: Why do you think some Hong Kong people feel their democracy and freedoms are being threatened?

Ip: Many of them have been brainwashed and misled into thinking that the central government has been suppressing our rights and freedoms.

On the other hand, if you look at the situation in the British era, they did not start promoting democracy until they were about to hand Hong Kong back to China. And in the past 23 years, we have made much more progress in expanding universal suffrage than in the 165 years of British rule.

So Beijing has actually been more liberal to Hong Kon

Share on Facebook

Business

Tax Reform Bills: The Verdict of Nigerians

Published

1 week ago

March 6, 2025

The Gleamer

Ismaila Ahmad Abdullahi Ph.D

The public hearings conducted recently by the two Chambers of the National Assembly have elicited positive responses from a broad spectrum of Nigerians, cutting across regional interest groups, government agencies, civil society groups, concerned individuals, the academia, and Labour Unions, among diverse others. Contrary to a few dissensions hitherto expressed in the media, almost all the stakeholders who spoke during the week-long sessions were unanimous in their declaration that the hallowed Chambers should pass the tax reform bills after a clean-up of the grey areas.

The public hearings were auspicious for all Nigerians desirous of economic growth and fiscal responsibility. They were also a watershed moment for the Federal Inland Revenue Service, which had been upbeat about the tax reforms. Indeed, the public hearings had rekindled hope in the tenets of democracy that guarantee freedom of expression and equitable space for cross-fertilisation of ideas. Without gainsaying the fact, the tax reform bills have been unarguably about the most thought-provoking issues in Nigeria today, drawing variegated perspectives and commentaries from even unlikely quarters such as the faith-based leaders, student bodies, and trade unions, which speaks much about the importance of the bills.

In the build-up to the public hearings, not many people believed that the bills would make it to the second reading, much less the public hearings. Even the Northern stakeholders who seemed unlikely to support the passage of the bills have softened their stance and have given valuable suggestions that would enrich the substance of the bills. The Arewa Consultative Forum came to the public hearings well-prepared with a printed booklet that addressed their concerns. It concluded with an advisory that the bills should be “Well planned, properly communicated, strategically implemented and ample dialogue and political consensus allowed for the reforms to be accepted.”

The concerns of ACF ranged from the composition of the proposed Nigeria Revenue Service Board as contained in Part 111, Section 7 of the bill, the unlimited Presidential power to exempt/wave tax payment as proposed in Section 75(1) of the bill, the family income or inheritance tax as contained in Part 1, Section 4(3) of the bill, to the issues around development levy and VAT. On the development levy, the ACF stated that unless the Federal Government is considering budgetary funding for TETFUND, NASENI and NITDA, it does not see the “wisdom behind the plan to replace (them) with NELFUND”.

The position of the North was equally reinforced by the Supreme Council for Shariah in Nigeria, Northern Elders Forum, Kano State Government, Professor Auwalu Yadudu, and the FCT Imams. Like the ACF, these stakeholders lent their respective voices to the Section on the Inheritance Tax in Part 1 of the bill and the use of the term ‘ecclesiastical’, which, in their views, undermines certain religious rights and beliefs. The Kano State Government, represented by Mahmud Sagagi, affirmed that “we support tax modernisation” but cautioned that “we must ensure that this process does not come at the expense of states’ constitutional rights and economic stability”. Professor Auwalu Yadudu, a constitutional law professor, drew attention to the use of the ‘supremacy clause’ and cautioned that the repeated use of “notwithstanding” in the bills would undermine the supremacy of the Nigerian constitution if passed as such.

Other stakeholders that made contributions at the sessions included the Nigeria Liquefied Natural Gas, Fiscal Responsibility Commission, Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission, Federal Ministry of Industry, Trade and Investment, Institute of Chartered Accountants of Nigeria, Chartered Institute of Taxation of Nigeria, Nigeria Customs Service, and a host of others. While most of their concerns bordered on technical issues requiring fine-tuning, they were unanimous in their support for the bills. They aligned with the position of the Executive Chairman of the Federal Inland Revenue Service, Zacch Adedeji, Ph.D. and the Chairman of the Presidential Committee on Fiscal Policy and Tax Reforms, Mr Taiwo Oyedele, which is that the extant tax laws and fiscal regulations are obsolete necessitating reforms aimed at creating a fair and equitable tax and fiscal space to grow Nigeria’s economy.

In one of the sessions, Dr Zaach Adedeji expounded on the criss-cross of trade activities in the Free Trade Zone whereby companies misuse tax waivers as exporters to sell their goods or services in the Customs Area at an amount usually less than the price the operators in the Customs Area who pay VAT and other taxes sell theirs thereby disrupting business transactions. This way, the operators in the Free Trade Zone shortchange the government in paying their due taxes by circumventing extant regulations, which are inimical to the economy’s growth.

Overall, the presentations were forthright, foresighted, and helpful in elucidating the issues contained in the bills. According to the statistics read out at the end of the hearings at the Senate, 75 stakeholders were invited, 65 made submissions, and 61 made presentations. At the House of Representatives 53 stakeholders made presentations. By all means, this is a fair representation. Given the presentations, it is evident that the National Assembly has gathered enough materials to guide its deliberations on the bills. As we look forward to the passage of the bills, we commend the leadership of the National Assembly for their unwavering commitment to making the bills see the light of the day.

Abdullahi is the Director of the Communications and Liaison Department, FIRS.

Share on Facebook