英裔中国公民 Mike Rowse 在香港48年，在廉政公署工作过6年，又当了几十年公务员。2008年退休。

他今天在南华早报撰文，认为中央干预香港的国家安全法，实属无奈。基本法有明确规定了国家安全法，但是香港历届政府一拖再拖。政府官员们拒绝与反对派谈判，而反对派无理取闹。特别可恨的三人是彭定康、陈方安生和Martin Lee。你们这帮家伙逼得中央没有选择。全文在下面。

他的观点与前几天英裔香港高级出庭律师Grenville Cross 在南华早报的文章基调一致，认为英美政府也是无理取闹。链接在此。

http://t.cn/A62CnmPp

Hong Kong has no one to blame but itself for Beijing’s intervention in national security legislation.

Decades of political gridlock, neglect and refusal to compromise forced the central government’s hand. Local government leaders have been distant and aloof while opposition figures have failed to offer serious proposals on the Basic Law directive.

Former undersecretary for the environment Christine Loh Kung-wai gave an interesting history lesson on an RTHK talk show last week during a discussion of the proposed national security legislation.

She reminded listeners she was a member of the Legislative Council in the 1990s. Before the handover, the council had a draft bill which “would have plugged the hole for Article 23”. She called it “a rather liberal version”. For various reasons, which Loh described as the “wisdom of the times”, the bill was not pursued.

I had forgotten this chapter. Like most, I have a clearer recollection of the events of 2003. Then-chief executive Tung Chee-hwa offered a controversial draft bill. Many amendments that brought the bill closer to something acceptable were proposed.

Meanwhile, half a million citizens – then the biggest demonstration since the handover – marched in opposition. Again, the bill was dropped, and secretary for security Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee resigned.

Nothing has happened in the 17 years since. Successive chief executives said it was the wrong time for Article 23 legislation or they had other priorities. All this despite the clear directive in the Basic Law that the onus was on Hong Kong to draft and enact the law.

As for the central government’s announcement that it would insert its national security law into Annex III of the Basic Law and apply it to Hong Kong, the decision has received widespread international and local criticism.

Former governor Chris Patten has led the overseas critics outside Washington. Local luminaries include former chief secretary Anson Chan Fang On-sang and Democratic Party founder Martin Lee Chu-ming. It would be nice if these three could remind us why the pre-handover bill was not enacted when the government still normally commanded a majority in Legco.

Focusing on one moment in time might miss the main point. Looking back at the past two decades and the controversies that arose – national security, national education, extradition, the national anthem law, political reform and so on – one has a sense of missed opportunity.

When the government has acted, it invariably started with an ultra-conservative position and made few meaningful gestures of compromise. Pan-democrats, meanwhile, lock themselves into steadfast opposition, with each member scared to suggest compromise lest they be accused of selling out. The splintering of the opposition has made serious negotiations virtually impossible. Moreover, they have not showed much initiative to propose compromises.

The exception in this saga was the 2010 deal between the Democratic Party, then-chief executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen and the central government’s liaison office, which resulted in the five super seats and an expanded election committee. The Democratic Party was duly lambasted by friends on the pan-democrat side. Who would risk another initiative after that?

The root of the problem seems to be that too many political leaders are not prepared to say clearly that Hong Kong is an irrevocable part of China. They know it, but they also know some constituents are not comfortable with their Chinese identity.

The minority who automatically favour whatever Beijing proposes, and the fringe who support independence or self-determination, dominate the media with loud voices. Meanwhile, the majority who accept Chinese sovereignty but want to preserve Hong Kong’s traditional freedoms are voiceless. Who is speaking up for moderation? Who in the pan-democratic camp is advocating talking to Beijing?

There is lots of blame to share. The two most recent administrations have not shown any interest in working with the opposition to find compromises. The most vivid example came after last year’s district council elections when pro-government candidates lost heavily. The chief executive responded by reaching out to the losers. “The people have spoken, but I am not interested in listening” seemed to be the message.

The opposition cannot escape responsibility, either, through their inability to initiate solid proposals or offer coherent counterproposals.

Some have accused the National People’s Congress of brushing aside Hong Kong’s government and forcefully intervening in local affairs. It might be more accurate to say Hong Kong abdicated its responsibilities. As we know, nature abhors a vacuum. Our inaction over many years created one, and now Beijing has filled it.

Mike Rowse is the CEO of Treloar Enterprises.

Mike Rowse has lived in Hong Kong since 1972, and is a naturalised Chinese citizen. He spent six years in the ICAC from 1974 to 1980, then 28 years in the government as an administrative officer until retirement in December 2008. He is now the search director for Stanton Chase International, and also hosts a radio talk show and writes regularly for both English and Chinese media.