Two companies linked to Hong Kong media mogul Jimmy Lai helped an activist group get a global advertising campaign off the ground during the pro-democracy protests and unrest in 2019, a court has heard during Lai’s national security trial.

Andy Li, one of the 12 Hongkongers caught by Chinese coastguard in a foiled attempt to flee to Taiwan by speedboat in August 2020, took the witness stand on Wednesday to testify for the prosecution. He previously pleaded guilty to conspiring to collude with foreign forces with Lai over his role in an international campaign to invite “hostile activities” against the city.

While Li did not mention Lai during Wednesday’s hearing, he said two companies – LAIS Hotel Properties Limited (LAIS Hotel) and Dico Consultant Limited (Dico) – were involved in making advance payments for the advertising campaign, also known as “Stand with Hong Kong” (SWHK). Both firms are alleged by prosecutors as controlled by Lai.

The witness, who appeared thin and wore a thick navy jacket, was escorted by three correctional officers into the courtroom at the West Kowloon Law Courts Building.

Li told the court that he was responsible for organising a crowdfunding effort to place ads in leading newspapers around the world ahead of the G20 summit in Japan in June 2019, when city-wide protests broke out against a controversial extradition bill.

He said a group of residents communicated via messaging app Telegram to develop the advertising campaign, adding that they wanted to “ride on the G20 occasion… to raise international awareness” for the movement.

“The group were very supportive of the idea, and – at that time – we were thinking about how to bring those very eye-catching protest scenes and the momentum to the world stage,” he said in Cantonese on the 44th day of the trial.

Lai – the 76-year-old Apple Daily founder – has pleaded not guilty to two counts of conspiring to collude with foreign forces under the security law and one count of conspiring to publish “seditious” materials under colonial-era legislation.

‘Uncles’ assisted ad campaign

Prosecutors said the campaign involved newspapers in 13 countries, including the US, the UK, France, Australia, and South Korea, as they presented scanned copies of the advertisements and payment records.

They also showed an account Li said he retained for record-keeping, which showed that the campaign sourced around HK$6.7 million through a crowdfunding website and paid about HK$6 million to newspapers, as well as Facebook and Google, to place the ads.

But Li said the money raised through crowdfunding was not readily available, and that he had to use his HK$3 million savings to make advanced payments so that the ads could be published ahead of the international summit in late-June that year.

He said a person named “T”, who he later knew was paralegal Chan Tsz-wah, offered help with “money issues” after he raised the issue in the Telegram group. Chan is another defendant turned prosecution witness in the present trial.

The witness said Chan told him that HK$5 million was reserved for the campaign by some “uncles,” whose identities were not known to Li.

Li said he came to know about LAIS Hotel and Dico when he saw the firms were printed on several payment records that Chan passed to him.

That included remittance advice sent to The Guardian in the UK and The Washington Post in the US, in which LAIS Hotel made a payment of £18,000 (HK$180,240) and US$85,050 (HK$665,344) respectively via a Canada-based credit union, according to copies shown to the court.

In another record, Dico made a payment of €20,000 (HK$171,174) to RCS Media Group, the parent company of Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera. Li added that Chan did not tell him anything about Dico.

The witness added that he was not involved in the design of the ads and did not draft the text, as he was solely focused on crowdfunding.

‘Mastermind’ and sponsor of campaign

Prosecutors, in their opening statement, alleged that Lai was the “mastermind and financial sponsor” of the SWHK campaign to lobby for foreign sanctions on the city and on China. He was said to have instructed his personal aide, US-based Mark Simon, to finance Li, Chan, and others in the SWHK campaign to request hostile activities from foreign countries.

See also: Hong Kong media mogul Jimmy Lai was ‘mastermind and sponsor’ of foreign lobbying efforts, court hears

Li is the fourth defendant turned prosecution witness to testify against Lai, after three ex-Apple Daily senior executives completed their testimonies.

After he and 11 other Hongkongers were intercepted by the Chinese coastguard in August 2020, Li served seven months in a mainland Chinese prison, where he was reportedly “tortured,” before he was transferred back to the city.

An international legal team for Lai in January took their case to the UN Human Rights Council, saying there were “grave concerns… as to whether [Li’s] testimony was procured through torture and coercion.”

The trial continues on Thursday.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

Hong Kong lawmakers have completed a review of the clauses in the city’s proposed security legislation following six consecutive days of meetings, moving the bill a step closer to being passed into law by the opposition-free legislature.

Continuing their meetings on Tuesday, lawmakers on the Bills Committee on Safeguarding National Security Bill and government officials discussed the draft law of Article 23, the city’s homegrown security legislation.

Lawmaker Peter Koon questioned officials about a clause in the draft law which states that authorities can deny early release to prisoners convicted over national security offences. Under the current law, inmates can be granted early release contingent on good behaviour.

The draft law proposes that national security offenders may not be eligible for early release schemes if it is believed that they could continue to endanger national security, and that the commissioner of correctional services would review the decision to deny them early release annually. The move would apply to people convicted of national security offences, including under the Beijing-imposed security law.

Koon suggested that the decision could be reviewed every six months instead.

“[Reviewing every six months] would give [inmates] motivation to improve themselves,” he said in Cantonese.

Otherwise, inmates may not have the incentive to be diligent or behave well, Koon added.

But Secretary for Security Chris Tang said annual reviews were more “reasonable” because the authorities needed to “inspect” whether there had been changes to the offender’s “thinking and behaviour,” and whether they still posed a threat to national security.

Lawmaker Lai Tung-kwok asked whether the power to deny national security offenders early release was retroactive, and if people currently serving time for such offences would be affected.

Acting law officer of the Department of Justice, Daphne Siu, said it would not be retroactive. She added that inmates could lodge appeals anytime.

Under Article 23 of Hong Kong’s Basic Law, the city is obliged to pass its own domestic security legislation.

Separate from the national security law that Beijing imposed on the city after the 2019 protests, the homegrown security legislation seeks to criminalise five offences: treason, insurrection, theft of state secrets and espionage, sabotage endangering national security, and external interference.

Marathon meetings

Legislators on the Bills Committee on Safeguarding National Security Bill have met to discuss the draft bill every day since Friday.

The draft will be put to a general meeting, in which the city’s 89 lawmakers will discuss the bill, next Wednesday at the earliest, local media reported.

It is expected to be passed swiftly by the “patriots-only” Legislative Council, which lost its opposition after the government overhauled election rules to introduce candidate screenings and nomination requirements.

Local media outlets reported that the law could be passed as early as in April.

In 2003, the last time Hong Kong attempted to legislate Article 23, an estimated 500,000 protesters marched to oppose the law. Local opposition this time around has been muted with the Beijing-imposed national security law in effect, under which mass protests have not taken place.

During the bill committee meetings, lawmakers have suggested amendments to the draft bill that would make the legislation harsher. On Tuesday, some said a proposal relating to measures against “absconders” was “too lenient.”

The draft bill currently states that authorities could levy sanctions against an individual charged under the homegrown security law if they do not appear before a court in the six months after they have been issued an arrest warrant. The sanctions include cancelling their passports and prohibiting anybody from providing them with funding.

Lawmakers said the six-month period was too long and that punitive measures should be levelled as soon as possible, with security chief Tang saying the government was considering scrapping the window.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

Beijing has condemned an editorial by US newspaper The Washington Post on Hong Kong’s “painful descent into authoritarian repression” with the legislation of a new security law, accusing the outlet of “ignorance and double-standards” on Hong Kong affairs.

In an editorial published on Monday, The Washington Post mentioned the landmark national security trial involving 47 high-profile Hong Kong democrats.

The 47 were charged under a Beijing-imposed security law on February 28, 2021, over their roles in an opposition primary in July 2020 to select candidates who would help the pro-democracy camp win a controlling majority in an election expected later that year. 

Calling the primary “a normal exercise,” the newspaper said: “[t]he only plausible, credible verdict is ‘innocent,’ letting all 47 go free — even though 31 have already pleaded guilty in hopes of ending their long torment and perhaps getting a more lenient sentence.”

On Tuesday, the Commissioner’s Office of China’s Foreign Ministry in Hong Kong responded to The Washington Post in a statement, saying, “those charged are not as ‘innocent’ as you thought. ”

“When I read the part about the Jimmy Lai case, I just can’t help laughing,” the statement continued, refuting the US outlet’s claim that Lai, founder and owner of Hong Kong newspaper Apple Daily, was “exercising his right” to push a pro-democracy agenda and urge the US to place sanctions on Hong Kong officials “involved in rolling back freedoms.”

In response, the commissioner’s office statement read: “What about this: the owner of the Washington Post exercises his prerogatives of ordering you to editorialize in favor of foreign sanctions against U.S. officials?”

While the 47 democrats – most of whom have been detained for more than three years – are still awaiting a verdict following the trial of the 16 among them who pleaded not guilty, the trial of Jimmy Lai is ongoing.

The Washington Post editorial also said that while the Beijing-imposed national security law was “draconian enough”, Hong Kong’s local officials “feel the need to double down with a local version that will expand the repression further.”

The op-ed concludes: “Hong Kong had been something special, an outpost of freedom on Chinese soil that could mediate between Beijing and the free world. China has crushed what had been one of its greatest assets.”

Beijing slammed this conclusion, telling the US outlet to “relax.”

“Regarding your alarmist assertion that ‘China has crushed what had been one of its greatest assets’, well, just relax and take a deep breath. With the firm support of the Chinese government and the Chinese people, the Pearl of the Orient will only shine even brighter,” the Commissioner Office of China’s Foreign Ministry in Hong Kong said.

Rebutting foreign outlet

On Tuesday alone, Beijing and Hong Kong authorities have hit back at three foreign media outlets regarding their coverage of Hong Kong’s proposed security law, including Bloomberg, the Guardian and the Washington Post.

Hong Kong’s security chief Chris Tang slammed a Bloomberg opinion piece that called the draft security legislation “worryingly vague,” and called The Washington Post editorial for its “misleading and inappropriate” editorial.

The government also issued a statement condemning UK newspaper The Times after it published a “misleading” report suggesting that Hongkongers who had old newspapers could violate the proposed homegrown national security law.

Last Tuesday, the government said it “strongly disapproves of and condemns false reports” by Bloomberg, which suggested that that Hong Kong planned to ban some social media under its new security law. Authorities clarified that they had “absolutely no intention” of blocking social media, and Bloomberg later admitted an error.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

Hong Kong has hit out at British newspaper The Times after it published a “misleading” report suggesting that readers holding old newspapers could violate the proposed homegrown national security law.

The Times published the article with the headline “Hongkongers to be jailed for keeping old newspapers” on Monday afternoon. The first sentence of the article read: “Hongkongers could be convicted and imprisoned for sedition for keeping old copies of newspapers, the territory’s pro-Beijing authorities have said.”

The British media outlet added that “[s] ecurity laws being pushed through in Hong Kong would impose up to three years in prison for keeping copies of the defunct newspaper Apple Daily,” referring to the pro-democracy tabloid that shut in June 2021 following arrests and a police raid.

In a statement on Tuesday, the Hong Kong said the report was “extremely misleading.”

“Not only is the report extremely misleading, its headline is also completely wrong, which misleads people into believing that one can be imprisoned for possessing certain old newspapers, thereby generating panic among members of the public,” the statement read.

It added that as stipulated in the draft bill of Article 23, the homegrown national security law, the prosecution has to prove that the defendant possesses the publication “without reasonable excuse” before the defendant may be convicted by the court.

“It is not possible for a person who does not know that the publication concerned has a seditious intention to be convicted,” the statement reads.

‘Reasonable excuse’

Hong Kong authorities have been working to swiftly enact the homegrown security law. The bill was introduced last Friday, just nine days after the end of a one-month public consultation period.

Since Friday, the Bills Committee on Safeguarding National Security Bill has held meetings daily totalling 35 hours to review the draft bill, with extra sessions held on Saturday and Sunday.

Apart from introducing a series of new offences and measures for suspects, prisoners and absconders, the proposed legislation also raises penalties for many offences.

For example, the possession of “seditious publications” could be punishable by up to three years in jail, compared to two years under the current colonial-era sedition law.

During a meeting at the Legislative Council on Monday, pro-Beijing lawmaker Peter Koon asked if people would violate the law if they had copies of the Apple Daily newspaper at home.

Security chief Chris Tang said in response that it would depend if the person accused had a “reasonable defence.”

“[If someone said] I had [the newspaper] for a long time, I didn’t know it was still there, the aim was not to incite… then I believe that could be a reasonable defence,” Tang said in Cantonese.

The newspaper’s founder, media mogul Jimmy Lai, is currently standing in a national security trial in which he faces foreign collusion and sedition charges.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

The Hong Kong government plans to amend a draft bill for the city’s new domestic security law to tighten measures against “absconders,” after lawmakers said the existing proposal was “too lenient.”

Presently, the draft bill states that authorities could levy sanctions against an individual charged under the homegrown security law if they do not appear before a court in the six months after they have been issued an arrest warrant. The sanctions include cancelling their passports and prohibiting anybody from providing them with funding.

Addressing lawmakers at the Legislative Council on Tuesday, Secretary for Security Chris Tang said the government was considering scrapping the six-month window.

See also: Hong Kong proposes cancelling ‘absconders’ passports under new security law

“We aim to create measures that could effectively combat the act of absconding, and to facilitate absconders to return to Hong Kong,” Tang said in Cantonese.

Tang’s comment came after lawmakers – who are sitting in marathon meetings to fast-track the bill’s legislation – on Monday took aim at the proposed arrangement, saying it was “too lenient.”

Gary Chan, the chairperson of the city’s largest pro-Beijing party the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, said that authorities would be “tying their own hands” if they provided absconders with a six-month window before taking punitive measures against them.

The six-month window should be reduced or taken away so that the counter measures could be levelled as soon as possible, Chan said, adding that offenders who endangered national security were unlikely to return if they had left the city.

Peter Koon, an Anglican clergy and a chaplain of the St. John’s Cathedral, said: “As a priest, I think [the officials] are more merciful than me.”

In the draft for the Safeguarding National Security Bill – also known as Article 23 – the secretary for security could declare a person charged with national security offences as an absconder if they fail to comply with an arrest warrant for six months and the security chief “reasonably believes” they are not in Hong Kong.

The bill proposes banning residents from providing absconders with financial support, leasing them property, or establishing a joint venture with them. Offenders could face up to seven years in jail.

It also seeks to cancel absconders’ passports as well as suspending their professional qualifications and business registration in the city.

Officials previously said that the window was proposed to “give absconders a chance” to come back to Hong Kong and surrender.

‘Innocent residents’

Tang on Tuesday also said that authorities would consider tightening measures against absconders so that “innocent residents” would not be affected.

The security chief said that business owners and co-investors would not be suspected of breaching the law if their partners were declared absconders. They would only be targeted if they continued to do business or began a business with them, Tang said.

Similarly, landlords would not be suspected of breaching the domestic security law if their tenants fled overseas and were wanted by the authorities.

Article 23 of the Basic Law stipulates that the government shall enact laws on its own to prohibit acts of treason, secession, sedition and subversion against Beijing. Its legislation failed in 2003 following mass protests and it remained taboo until after the onset of the separate, Beijing-imposed security law in 2020. Pro-democracy advocates fear it could have a negative effect on civil liberties but the authorities say there is a constitutional duty to ratify it.

The bills committee will continue discussing the draft on Wednesday, marking the sixth straight day – including last Saturday and Sunday – of meetings. The draft will be brought to the general meeting, in which the city’s 89 lawmakers will discuss the bill, earliest on next Wednesday, local media reported.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

Six nurses at a Hong Kong private hospital have accused a member of senior nursing staff of sexual harassment, prompting an internal investigation.

HK01 reported on Monday that some female nurses in the intensive care unit (ICU) of at the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) Medical Centre had accused a male nurse, who was their superior in the unit, of sexual harassment. The hospital has confirmed the incident.

The alleged harassment involved verbal and physical acts, with at least six nurses filing complaints to the hospital.

Citing sources, the local media outlet reported that some nurses accused the hospital of not taking the matter seriously as it did not demote the nurse, instead transferring him to another department.

The hospital told local media outlets on Monday evening that it had received reports from nurses and conducted an internal investigation into the incident. It said that the hospital had taken disciplinary action against the accused, including issuing a warning letter and moving him out of the department.

The hospital added that it had not found sufficient evidence showing that the incident could constitute criminal offences, and therefore it did not report the case to the police. But the hospital said it did not prevent the staff involved from filing police reports.

Sexual harassment

According to the Sex Discrimination Ordinance, making an unwelcome sexual advance or an unwelcome request for sexual favours to a person, or engaging in other unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature, might constitute sexual harassment at workplace and educational institutions.

The ordinance, which is overseen by the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC), stipulates that sexual harassment is an unlawful act that falls under civil jurisdiction. However, sexual harassment might constitute a criminal offence if it involves behaviour such as indecent assault and voyeurism.

According to the EOC, apart from reporting the case to employer, victims of alleged sexual harassment can also file complaints to the EOC within one year of the incident taking place or file a lawsuit in District Court within two years of it taking place.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

Those who have been arrested under a proposed security law and granted bail, and those who have refused bail and been discharged by police, may be subject to restrictions on their movement, security chief Chris Tang has said.

According to the draft of the Safeguarding National Security Bill, suspects accused of endangering national security may be subject to a series of new restrictions, including extending their pre-charge detention time, limiting their access to lawyers, and issuing a movement restriction order for those on bail.

According to the bill, those restrictions would be granted by the courts upon police application. A movement restriction order would be valid for three months, with the possibility of extending it for another month, and would require a suspect to live at a specified address and give police the identities of anyone they live with.

Tang said in the Legislative Council (LegCo) on Monday, as lawmakers discussed the draft bill, that such measures would serve as “combos” to prevent suspects from leaving Hong Kong.

Tang added that anyone who violated the movement restriction order would face a maximum penalty of one year in prison.

Kitson Yang, a pro-establishment lawmaker, asked in LegCo on Monday whether authorities would consider introducing electronic ankle monitors for national security suspects. Tang said the measure would not be adopted.

“Taking into account Hong Kong’s situation and human rights issues, we have not considered introducing any electronic devices or electronic ankle monitors [for those under arrest in national security cases],” Tang said in Cantonese.

Asked whether the new legislation would empower authorities to confiscate arrestees’ passports, Tang said the Beijing-imposed national security law already authorised police to take the passports of people on bail.

Other new powers

In addition, the draft bill outlines giving authorities the power to cancel the Hong Kong passports of security law “absconders” and ban providing them with financial support.

It also proposes amending the city’s prison laws to raise the threshold for national security prisoners to apply for early release.

If the draft bill passes Hong Kong’s opposition-free legislature, the amendment would apply “whether the sentence of the prisoner… was imposed before, on or after the commencement of” the change in law.

Authorities have been working to swiftly enact the homegrown security law. The bill was introduced last Friday, just nine days after the end of a one-month public consultation period.

Beginning on Friday, the Bills Committee on Safeguarding National Security Bill has held 28-hours worth of meetings to review the draft bill, with special sessions held on Saturday and Sunday. Meetings will continue on Tuesday.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

Proposed limits on Hong Kong national security detainees’ access to lawyers would depend on police investigation, the city’s justice minister has said.

Speaking to lawmakers at the Legislative Council on Monday (LegCo), Secretary for Justice Paul Lam said the two clauses in the draft bill for the city’s domestic security law – known as Article 23 – which refer to limiting those held on suspicion of endangering national security from accessing specific lawyers or, in certain circumstances, from seeking legal advice, would be applied according to police intelligence.

“[Which clause to apply] really depends on how much intelligence we have, how likely there is to be an accomplice outside to tip off others, and that how certain we can be about [an alleged accomplice’s] identity,” Lam said in Cantonese, adding that “accomplices” could be lawyers.

According to the bill, police could apply for a court warrant to stop a suspect from seeking counsel from “specific lawyers” during the pre-charge detention period, which authorities also proposed extending to up to 16 days.

Police could also bar detainees from meeting any lawyers at all for 48 hours on the grounds that the legal visit “will endanger national security or cause bodily harm to any person,” the draft bill states.

A marathon discussion at the LegCo continued on Monday, after the bills committee convened extra meetings over the weekend to fast-track the legislative process of Article 23, with lawmakers focusing on the proposed limits to legal visits during detention, a constitutional rights guaranteed by the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s mini-constitution.

See also: New powers proposed for police, courts to limit national security detainees’ access to lawyers

Lam said the rationale behind the proposal was that some lawyers could exploit their privilege when meeting detainees to facilitate acts that endangered national security or impede investigations.

“The guiding thought is that some lawyers are not sincerely providing legal services, but instead they may take the opportunity to destroy evidence or notify [an accomplice],” he said. “[The proposals] are to prevent people from harming national security or obstructing our work in the name of legal counsel.”

But Lam said that the move of barring detainees from meeting lawyers could not be “endless” as it would be a “significant” limit on their constitutional rights.

Vernon Loh, senior assistant solicitor general of the Department of Justice, said the ban – which may last 48 hours – could only be applied for once during the detention period. He said the lengthier the ban, the more likely it could be subject to a legal challenge.

He added that the government had referenced national security legislation in the UK, under which suspects could be barred from meeting lawyers during a 48-hour detention period.

Apollonia Liu, deputy secretary for security, said that the 48-hour time frame could help police investigate the identities of lawyers, who if the detainees were to meet may have endangered national security.

Once the identities became clear, authorities could resort to the restrictions on specific lawyers, she added.

Lawmaker Kennedy Wong, a solicitor, asked whether there would be any appeal mechanism for lawyers, saying that such allegations would have “serious consequences” on their reputations.

Ivan Leung, acting deputy principal government counsel, said the court warrants would be handled by a magistrate in a closed court and that it would not affect the lawyers’ reputations.

He added that the restrictions would be imposed on the detainees’ rights and not the lawyers’, therefore there would not be appeal mechanisms for the latter.

Article 23 of the Basic Law stipulates that the government shall enact laws on its own to prohibit acts of treason, secession, sedition and subversion against Beijing. Its legislation failed in 2003 following mass protests and it remained taboo until after the onset of the separate, Beijing-imposed security law in 2020. Pro-democracy advocates fear it could have a negative effect on civil liberties but the authorities say there is a constitutional duty to ratify it.

The bill, which Chief Executive John Lee said should be passed “at full speed,” outlines a raft of national security offences including treason, insurrection, and sabotage, with sentences ranging up to life imprisonment.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

Jailed media mogul Jimmy Lai’s “radical” stance during the 2019 protests and unrest was common knowledge, a commentary writer for Lai’s pro-democracy paper Apple Daily has told a national security trial against his ex-boss.

Yeung Ching-kee, who earlier pleaded guilty to taking part in a conspiracy to collude with foreign forces and is testifying against Lai for the prosecution, told a panel of three handpicked national security judges on Monday that Lai would appeal to the paper’s readers to take to the streets in 2019, when the city saw massive protests sparked by a now-axed extradition bill.

Lai is facing a 80-day trial and life in prison after he denied two counts of conspiring to collude with foreign forces under the Beijing-imposed security law. He also pleaded not guilty to one count of conspiring to publish “seditious” materials under the colonial-era sedition law.

US foreign policy

Yeung, who managed the paper’s “forum” page, told the court on Monday that Lai became “more radical” in October 2018 after then-US vice-president Mike Pence delivered a speech on a shift in US foreign policy towards China.

See also: Hong Kong’s Jimmy Lai was sympathetic towards frontline ‘valiant’ protesters in 2019, court hears

Over text message, Lai told Yeung, who would later write a piece on Pence’s speech, that Washington’s move was a response to Chinese President Xi Jinping’s “weakness” and that its timing was “perfect,” the court heard.

Yeung added that Lai’s radicalisation was reflected in the tabloid’s coverage thereafter: “During the anti-extradition movement, it was common knowledge that Apple had a radical stance. News reports would always mention the words ‘take to the streets,’ and I didn’t think that made for a good headline.”

“‘Take to the streets’ today, ‘take to the streets’ tomorrow… [you’d] always see it,” Yeung added.

Lai, and by extension, the paper, also believed that there should be “unity” between frontline “valiants” and peaceful protesters at that time, Yeung told the court.

For a period, the paper’s reports incorporated the mantra of “no condemnation, no snitching, and no severing of ties,” but it was no longer mentioned after the national security law took effect in June 2020, though not as a result of a change in the paper’s stance, Yeung said.

The idea of not “severing ties” referred to the need for unity in the movement, whilst “valiants” referred to those who used non-peaceful means on the streets.

No independence commentary

Yeung also said on Monday that the paper would not run pro-independence commentaries even though freelance commentary writer Eric Poon, known otherwise by his penname Sang Pu, publicly supported Hong Kong independence.

“When publishing his articles, the subject matter would not be related to Hong Kong independence,” Yeung said.

Yeung was not familiar with the situation of overseas writers, however.

The prosecution presented an editorial piece written by Hong Kong Watch’s now-former political advisor Sam Goodman on Canada’s “lifeboat” emigration programme for Hong Kong. Asked if he was familiar with the UK-based NGO, Yeung said he only knew of it, but did not have a clear idea of how it functioned.

Yeung told the court that he knew the group was concerned with the human rights situation in Hong Kong, but “did not pay much attention” to their writing, and could not make any conclusive comments.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

Hong Kong’s sole delegate to China’s top political body has said she felt Beijing’s “care and support” for Hong Kong during an annual parliamentary gathering, adding that she would take the “spirit” of the key Two Sessions meetings to the local community.

Starry Lee, a member of the National People’s Congress Standing Committee, spoke to the media group that runs state-backed newspapers Ta Kung Pao and Wen Wei Po as the Two Sessions ended in Beijing on Monday.

“The central authorities’ seminars clearly showed the central government’s care and support [for Hong Kong],” Lee said in Mandarin.

China’s number two official Premier Li Qiang is highly concerned with “other situations in Hong Kong” including the legislation of Article 23, Lee said, referring to the domestic security law that is currently being discussed in the Legislative Council.

Lee added that Hong Kong delegates to the National People’s Congress, China’s legislative body, would serve as a communication bridge.

“The premier also has a wish that we would take the spirit of the Two Sessions and spread it widely in Hong Kong society,” said Lee, who is also a lawmaker and the chairperson of the city’s biggest pro-Beijing party, The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong.

The Two Sessions, an annual gathering of Beijing’s political elites, drew to a close on Monday. The week-long event saw pledges by officials to do more to boost China’s ailing economy and prioritise national security.

Regarding Hong Kong, Li said on the first day of the meetings that Hong Kong should continue implementing the governing principles of One Country, Two Systems and “patriotic administration.”

Meanwhile, a press conference traditionally held by the premier at the end of the Two Sessions was scrapped this year. The event was a rare opportunity for foreign media outlets to question China’s top leaders directly, albeit usually with questions vetted ahead of time.

209 suggestions submitted

The Two Sessions in Beijing took place as the draft bill of Article 23, Hong Kong’s homegrown security law, was introduced to the legislature for lawmakers to discuss.

Separate from the national security law that Beijing imposed on the city after the 2019 protests, the domestic security legislation seeks to criminalise five offences: treason, insurrection, theft of state secrets and espionage, sabotage endangering national security, and external interference. Under Article 23 of Hong Kong’s Basic Law, the city is obliged to pass its own security legislation.

Ahead of the bill’s introduction to the legislature, Chinese Vice-Premier Ding Xuexiang met with Hong Kong deputies to the National People’s Congress on Thursday. Ding is the head of the Central Leading Group on Hong Kong and Macau Affairs, the highest body overseeing China’s policy towards the two territories.

Lawmaker Ma Fung-kwok, one of the deputies, told reporters after the meeting that Xue said the central authorities “fully supported” the legislation of Article 23.

See also: What is Article 23? Hong Kong’s homegrown security law is back in the spotlight

Brave Chan, also a deputy, cited Ding saying that the domestic security law would safeguard national interests and Hong Kong’s stability.

Hong Kong’s deputies to the National People’s Congress submitted 209 suggestions to central authorities during the Two Sessions, Ma told local media outlets on Sunday. Among them were proposals to increase the duty-free allowance for mainland Chinese tourists in Hong Kong from HK$5,000 to HK$30,000, as well as expand the multiple-entry visas to residents from more mainland cities.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

The storming of Hong Kong’s legislative complex during the 2019 protests was “not an impulsive act,” an activist convicted of rioting has said in his mitigation plea.

Using force to enter the Legislative Council (LegCo) on July 1, 2019, was a “desperate outcry” by protesters who felt that peaceful demonstrations alone were not capable of putting a stop to a since-axed extradition bill, activist Owen Chow told District Judge Li Chi-ho on Monday in a mitigation hearing.

Chow and another activist Ventus Lau, neither of whom had legal representations, gave their mitigation speeches on Monday after pleading guilty last year to rioting inside the city’s legislature more than four years ago.

Protests erupted in June 2019 over a since-axed extradition bill. They escalated into sometimes violent displays of dissent against police behaviour, amid calls for democracy and anger over Beijing’s encroachment. Demonstrators demanded an independent probe into police conduct, amnesty for those arrested and a halt to the characterisation of protests as “riots.” 

The key date in Hong Kong’s months-long unrest saw protesters storming the government building in Admiralty by breaking glass windows and doors and scrawling protest slogans on the walls. Some also sprayed black paint on Hong Kong’s emblem inside the legislative chamber, while others vandalised the portraits of previous legislative presidents.

Chow on Monday admitted that he had sprayed slogans on the walls inside the legislative complex, torn up three copies of the Basic Law and helped put up a banner which read “There are no rioters, only tyranny” inside the chamber.

Most protesters who stormed the LegCo building were “fearful,” according to Chow, who said that their actions had escalated because they felt that peaceful and lawful means would not stop the government from pushing the controversial bill forward.

“Riot is the language of the unheard,” Chow said, quoting American civil rights activist Martin Luther King Jr.

“[Entering LegCo] was not an impulsive act, but rather a desperate outcry by those who felt that they were left with no other options,” he added in Cantonese.

Chow said the storming of LegCo was a milestone in the 2019 unrest, symbolising a “direct exercise of political rights” by Hongkongers. It was also an act of resistance against what he described as a system that continued to suppress public opinion.

“The court is not a place for you to express discontent towards the political system,” the judge said, interrupting Chow.

Lau told the court that he did not take part in the clashes on July 1, 2019. He went to the LegCo building out of concern that there would be “bloody incidents” and said he wanted to “minimise casualties” that evening.

Lau said he only took “defensive gear” handed out by demonstrators at the scene, including a cycling helmet and protective goggles. His helmet was very recognisable and he had no intention of hiding his identity, the activist told the court.

Lau said he had temporarily left Hong Kong after his protest-related arrests, and had thought about not returning to the city. But he decided to face his criminal liabilities in the end, because he “did not want to spend [his] whole life unable to return to the city [he loves].”

Lau’s mitigation plea was stopped multiple times by the judge, who said the activist’s speech showed an inclination of “expressing [his] political stance.” The court was not a platform for Lau to make political statements, the judge warned.

“If you let me choose 100 more times, I would still choose to enter [the LegCo],” Lau said in Cantonese.

The activist, who has been remanded in custody for more than three years for a separate national security case, said he had missed a lot of important milestones since being detained. He felt that his loved ones were being “punished” alongside him, including his girlfriend of nine years, who had to “run around” for him every day while he was in custody.

“I just want to be a competent boyfriend when get out,” he said.

Both Lau and Chow are among 47 pro-democracy figures facing up to life imprisonment over an alleged conspiracy to commit subversion in connection with an unofficial legislative primary election held in July 2020.

Lau is awaiting sentencing after pleading guilty in the landmark national security case, while Chow is waiting for a verdict after facing trial that exceeded 100 days. The court finished hearing closing arguments in December last year, but three handpicked judges said that “no guarantees” could be made as to whether a verdict would be delivered in three to four months as anticipated.

Beijing inserted national security legislation directly into Hong Kong’s mini-constitution in June 2020 following a year of pro-democracy protests and unrest. It criminalised subversion, secession, collusion with foreign forces and terrorist acts – broadly defined to include disruption to transport and other infrastructure. The move gave police sweeping new powers and led to hundreds of arrests amid new legal precedents, while dozens of civil society groups disappeared. The authorities say it restored stability and peace to the city, rejecting criticism from trade partners, the UN and NGOs.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

Cooperating with foreign groups is a “neutral” act and it will not violate Hong Kong’s proposed domestic security law unless it is done via “improper means” and causes an “interference effect,” security chief Chris Tang has said.

The remarks came on Sunday, when lawmakers asked questions concerning the proposed new “external interference” offence during a fast-tracked discussion in the Legislative Council (LegCo) about the Safeguarding National Security Bill.

The draft bill defines external interference as someone who “collaborates with an external force to do an act” with “intent to bring about an interference effect,” and uses “improper means when doing the act.”

Pro-establishment lawmaker and convenor of the Executive Council Regina Ip said on Sunday in the LegCo that many former foreign officials served in think tanks and academic institutions to influence the policies of other countries. Ip asked if cooperating with those groups would be considered external interference.

In response, Tang said that while such cooperation might constitute “collaborating with external forces,” it will not violate the law if “improper means” were not employed and it did not cause “an interference effect.”

Ip replied that defining working with foreign groups as “collaborating with external forces” sounded very “negative.” Tang said: “It’s neutral. Cooperating with others is a neutral act. Cooperation is neutral.”

Jeffery Lam, a pro-establishment lawmaker and a member of the Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong, said on Sunday in the LegCo that commerce chambers and enterprises often worked with foreign institutions, drawing on their experiences to lobby the city’s government.

Lam asked whether provisions specifying that certain conduct would not be considered unlawful could be introduced to the bill.

In response, Tang again said that local companies cooperating with foreign groups may be considered as “collaborating with external forces,” but would not violate the law unless they did so using “improper means” and it caused “an interference effect.”

According to the draft bill, interfering in the policy formulation of Beijing or Hong Kong authorities, interfering with the functionality of LegCo or the courts, interfering in any elections, and prejudicing the relationship between China and foreign countries, and between the central authorities and Hong Kong would be considered as “bringing about an interference effect.”

74 minutes per section

Over the weekend, the Bills Committee on Safeguarding National Security Bill convened extra meetings totalling 16 hours to examine the draft bill of Article 23, a 200-page document.

Including Friday, the committee hosted almost 20 hours of meetings to examine 73 articles under 11 sections, representing around 70 per cent of all articles.

Ming Pao reported that each section was examined for approximately 74 minutes.

The committee is holding meetings on Monday and will also meet on Tuesday.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

Hongkongers will need a “reasonable defence” for keeping “seditious publications” at home, security chief Chris Tang has said as a lawmaker brought up the now-defunct Apple Daily newspaper during a fast-tracked discussion about the city’s impending domestic security law.

Legislator Peter Koon asked whether residents would breach the law if they had publications at home that were deemed “seditious,” citing the pro-democracy Apple Daily newspaper. Its founder, media mogul Jimmy Lai, is current standing in a national security trial in which he faces foreign collusion and sedition charges.

“[Apple Daily] is certainly seditious, but what if some people intend to keep a record of such a bad newspaper and has two copies at home, would that be counted as possessing seditious publications?” Koon asked in Cantonese.

Tang said it would depend if the person accused had a “reasonable defence.”

“[If someone said] I had [the newspaper] for a long time, I didn’t know it was still there, the aim was not to incite… then I believe that could be a reasonable defence,” Tang said.

He added that the time of publication would not matter in the prosecution of possession of seditious publications.

But Ivan Leung, acting deputy principal government counsel, said Koon’s question involved ongoing legal procedures and that he would refrain from commenting. Leung said only that it did not matter if the materials in question were published prior to the enactment of the proposed law, and that whether a person has committed the offence depended on the “seditious intention.”

Over the weekend, the Legislative Council convened extra meetings totalling 16 hours to discuss the Safeguarding National Security Bill – also known as Article 23 – after the government officially introduced it to the legislature on Friday. It came just nine days after the end of a one-month public consultation period.

The bill, which Chief Executive John Lee said should be passed “at full speed,” outlines a raft of national security offences including treason, insurrection, and sabotage, with sentences of up to life imprisonment.

The bill also proposed raising the penalties for some existing offences, such as upping the maximum sentence for sedition from two years to seven years – or 10 years if the offender is found to have colluded with an external force. Meanwhile, the possession of “seditious publications” could be punished by up to three years in jail, compared to two years under the current colonial-era sedition law.

According to the proposed bill, “seditious intention” covers the incitement of hatred, contempt, or disaffection against China’s political system, its apparatuses in Hong Kong, and the city’s government and legal system.

It also includes the intention to cause hatred “amongst different classes of residents of [Hong Kong and China].”

The proposed definition replaced certain words in the existing sedition legislation, which was last amended in the 1970s when Hong Kong was still a British colony.

The bill also specified that the prosecution does not have to prove that those suspected of committing sedition offences intended to incite public disorder or violence – a deviation from other common law jurisdictions.

‘Despicable intention’

As meetings were underway in the Legislative Council, the government on Sunday issued a statement condemning the Washington-based Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation (CFHK) for “intimidating” Chinese and city officials.

The statement came after CFHK on Saturday called on the US to impose sanctions on local officials responsible for the Article 23 legislation.

“The vaguely written and broad definition of the offences would allow the Hong Kong government to target any individual or entity for exercising their rights and freedoms with egregious sentences,” CFHK said in a statement.

The government said that by requesting US sanctions, CFHK may have committed foreign collusion under the Beijing-imposed national security law, which also criminalises secession, subversion, and terrorism.

“[The CFHK] blatantly clamoured at this juncture for so-called ‘sanctions’ against dutiful officials of [China and Hong Kong] with a view to intimidating them, completely ignoring the due legislative procedures… and fully demonstrating its despicable intention,” a government spokesperson said, calling CFHK an “anti-China” organisation.

The spokesperson added that US-based activist Frances Hui, who is wanted by national security police and has a HK$1 million bounty on her head, was a core member of the CFHK, therefore showing the “necessity” of the proposed offence targeting absconders.

The Article 23 bill proposes giving powers to authorities such as cancelling absconders’ passports, as well as new offences prohibiting the flow of funds to to them.

Article 23 of the Basic Law stipulates that the government shall enact laws on its own to prohibit acts of treason, secession, sedition and subversion against Beijing. Its legislation failed in 2003 following mass protests and it remained taboo until after the onset of the separate, Beijing-imposed security law in 2020. Pro-democracy advocates fear it could have a negative effect on civil liberties but the authorities say there is a constitutional duty to ratify it.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

Those found guilty of certain offences under Hong Kong’s proposed new security legislation, including treason and sabotage, may face life in prison, a draft bill unveiled on Friday has revealed.

The government on Friday introduced the Safeguarding National Security Bill – known locally as Article 23 – to the city’s legislature, which convened a rare, off-schedule meeting to begin its legislative process. Andrew Leung, president of the Legislative Council (LegCo) said the government and the LegCo must join hands in passing the bill as soon as possible, describing it as a “historical mission.”

See also: New powers proposed for police, courts to limit national security detainees’ access to lawyers

Authorities for the first time set out the proposed penalties for each of the offences included under Article 23 legislation, which covers five areas of national security crimes: treason, insurrection and incitement to mutiny, theft of state secret and espionage, sabotage, and external interference.

Among the offences that could be punished by life in prison were: treason, insurrection and sabotage, targeting acts that endanger the sovereignty of China and collusion with foreign forces in damaging public infrastructure.

Among the raft of offences included in the draft bill, most carry a maximum penalty of more than five years in jail, with some seeing higher sentences still if the offences were committed in collusion with a foreign force.

That includes sabotage by damaging or weakening public infrastructure, punishable by up to 20 years in prison. But if the offender is found to have colluded with “an external force,” they could face life behind bars.

External forces include foreign governments, political parties, international organisations as well as the personnel affiliated with them, according to the bill.

A consultation paper for Article 23 said offences relating to sabotage were directed against vandalism of transport and telecommunications facilities, citing the pro-democracy protests and unrest in 2019.

Protests erupted in June 2019 over a since-axed extradition bill. They escalated into sometimes violent displays of dissent against police behaviour, amid calls for democracy and anger over Beijing’s encroachment. Demonstrators demanded an independent probe into police conduct, amnesty for those arrested and a halt to the characterisation of protests as “riots.” 

Similarly, the new insurrection offence covers violent acts with an intention to “endanger the sovereignty, unity or territorial integrity of [China] or the public safety of [Hong Kong],” with authorities saying it could “adequately reflect… the nature of such violence [in 2019] in endangering national security.”

New offences are introduced in the draft bill that fall outside of the five areas of crime, including “Unlawful harassment of persons handling cases or work concerning national security,” punishable by up to 10 years in jail.

“Prejudicing investigation of offences endangering national security” and “making available or dealing with funds to absconder” are proposed with up to seven years in prison.

Lawmakers are set to convene over the weekend for extra meetings to push forward the legislative process, according to local media reports.

Article 23 of the Basic Law stipulates that the government shall enact laws on its own to prohibit acts of treason, secession, sedition and subversion against Beijing. Its legislation failed in 2003 following mass protests and it remained taboo until after the onset of the separate, Beijing-imposed security law in 2020. Pro-democracy advocates fear it could have a negative effect on civil liberties but the authorities say there is a constitutional duty to ratify it.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

A person “reasonably suspected of having committed an offence endangering national security” may be detained without charge for up to two weeks, after the initial 48-hours detention period expires, according to the draft homegrown security law bill.

If the Safeguarding National Security Bill passes the opposition-free legislature, a police officer ranked chief superintendent or above may appeal to a magistrate’s court – within the initial 48-hour detention period – for an extension of up to two weeks.

The magistrate can then extend the detention period for seven days after the first detention period expires, and a further seven days after that. However, they must be satisfied that “the investigation of the offence is being diligently and expeditiously conducted by the police” and cannot “reasonably be completed before the date of the application.”

Plus, they must be convinced that the extension is “necessary for securing or preserving the evidence of the offence or for obtaining the evidence by questioning the person,” according to the draft legislation.

Currently, anyone arrested in Hong Kong cannot be held for longer than 48 hours, after which the person must be released or charged.

Article 23 of the Basic Law stipulates that the government shall enact laws on its own to prohibit acts of treason, secession, sedition and subversion against Beijing. Its legislation failed in 2003 following mass protests and it remained taboo until after the onset of the separate, Beijing-imposed security law in 2020. Pro-democracy advocates fear it could have a negative effect on civil liberties but the authorities say there is a constitutional duty to ratify it.

Swift passage expected

The Legislative Council (LegCo) will convene a special meeting at 11 am on Friday for the first reading of the the bill according to its schedule. It comes just nine days after the end of a public consultation which prompted more than 13,000 submissions.

Around 97 per cent of of the submissions received had expressed their support for the law, according to the government.

Chief Executive John Lee said in a statement on Thursday that he had notified LegCo President Andrew Leung that “both the government and the Legislative Council have the responsibility to, and must, make every endeavour to complete the enactment of the legislation at the earliest possible time.”

See also: Article 23 then and now: What changed between 2002 and 2024

According to local media reports, authorities hope to have the bill passed by National Security Education Day on April 15.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

Hong Kong’s homegrown security law would include a public interest defence for certain offences related to the theft of state secrets, a draft of the proposed legislation has revealed.

According to the draft bill published on Friday morning, a person facing charges under three types of state secrets offences – unlawful acquisition, unlawful possession and unlawful disclosure – may invoke the defence that they had made “a specified disclosure.”

The bill defines a “specified disclosure” as one where the purpose of the disclosure is to reveal a threat to public order, safety, or health; that the government is not functioning lawfully; and where the “public interest served by making the disclosure manifestly outweighs the public interest served by not making the disclosure.”

The draft of the city’s homegrown security law was brought to the Legislative Council for discussion on Friday.

Article 23 of the Basic Law states that Hong Kong must enact its own laws to criminalise acts that endanger national security. Colloquially known as Article 23, the homegrown law is separate from the Beijing-imposed national security legislation, which was enacted in 2020 following the 2019 protests and unrest.

During the one-month consultation period for the security law, suggestions were raised that leaks believed to be made in the public’s interest should be exempted from prosecution. Secretary for Security Chris Tang said the government would consider it.

See also: Article 23: Hong Kong proposes raising maximum penalty for sedition to 10 years under new security law

The draft of the Safeguarding National Security Bill, however, did not state public interest exemptions for offences involving the unlawful possession of state secrets when leaving Hong Kong, unlawful disclosure of information acquired by espionage, and unlawful disclosure of information that appears to be confidential matter.

Under the unlawful disclosure of state secrets offence, the public interest exemption did not appear under a section of the draft related to the unlawful disclosure of state secrets made by a public officer or government contractor.

Press freedom concerns

State secrets, according to the draft bill, includes secrets concerning “major policy decision on affairs” relating to China and Hong Kong; the construction of China’s national defence; the economic and technological development of China and Hong Kong; and the relationship between the central and Hong Kong governments.

Under the unlawful acquisition of state secrets offence, “acquiring” information involves “collecting, recording or copying,” but not information that came into someone’s possession without their knowledge or without them “taking any step.”

For the unlawful disclosure of information that appears to be confidential, people can be convicted regardless of whether the information is true or not.

Earlier, the Hong Kong Journalists Association expressed concern about the theft of state secrets offence, calling the definition of “state secrets” laid out in a public consultation paper for the law too broad. Journalists receive leaks from government sources on occasion, for example in relation to personnel changes and policy announcements, and it was difficult for the press to determine whether their sources were disclosing this information with lawful authority, the group said.

The draft of the homegrown security law does not state any protections for journalists.

Up to 10 years’ jail

Those convicted of the unlawful possession of state secrets face up to five years in jail, while those convicted of unlawful disclosure of information acquired by espionage face up to 10 years in jail, according to the draft bill.

Unlawful acquisition of state secrets may carry a maximum sentence of seven years, the document states.

The introduction of the bill came just nine days after the end of a one-month public consultation period, which prompted more than 13,000 submissions, 97 per cent of which expressed support for the new security law, according to the government.

Submissions that opposed the proposals included those from “anti-China organisations” based overseas such as Amnesty International and Hong Kong Watch, the government said in a summary of the views collected during the consultation.

Locally, opposition to Article 23 has been muted, with the pro-democracy League of Social Democrats among the few groups to express their concerns that its legislation could have a negative impact on freedoms. The city has not seen mass protests since Beijing imposed the national security law, under which dozens of civil society groups have collapsed and activists arrested.

In 2003, the last time Hong Kong attempted to legislate Article 23, an estimated 500,000 protesters marched to oppose the law.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

The Hong Kong government has proposed raising the maximum penalty for sedition to seven years in jail, up from the current two years, while offenders found to have colluded with an “external force” in committing sedition may face a maximum of 10 years behind bars.

According to the proposed bill for the enactment of legislation under Article 23 of the Basic Law – Hong Kong’s homegrown security law – “seditious intention” is defined as inciting hatred, contempt, or disaffection against China, its apparatuses in Hong Kong, and the city’s government and legal system.

It also includes the intention to cause hatred “amongst different classes of residents of [Hong Kong and China].”

If the Safeguarding National Security Bill passes the opposition-free legislature, anyone in possession of a “publication that has a seditious intention” without a “reasonable excuse” could face up to three years in jail.

Under current law, sedition carries a maximum jail term of two years in prison for a first offence. It was based on colonial-era legislations – last amended in the 1970s when Hong Kong was still a British colony.

The bill also specifies that the prosecution does not have to prove that those suspected of committing sedition intended to incite public disorder or violence. On Thursday, Hong Kong’s Court of Appeal arrived at a similar judgement in rejecting pro-democracy activist “Fast beat” Tam Tak-chi’s appeal against his sedition conviction.

See also: Hong Kong’s sedition law – a colonial relic revived after half a century

The sedition law, one of Hong Kong’s legacies from the British colonial government, was unused for over half a century until its revival in the aftermath of the 2019 extradition bill protests and unrest and the Beijing-imposed security law in 2020.

The Legislative Council convened a special meeting on Friday morning for the first reading of the Safeguarding National Security Bill – known locally as Article 23.

The introduction of the bill came just nine days after the end of a one-month public consultation period, which prompted more than 13,000 submissions, 97 per cent of which expressed support for the new security law, according to the government.

China’s Vice Premier Ding Xuexiang urged a swift enactment of legislation under Article 23 of Hong Kong’s mini-constitution on Thursday, as he held talks with the city’s deputies to the National People’s Congress, China’s legislature.

Article 23 of the Basic Law stipulates that the government shall enact laws on its own to prohibit acts of treason, secession, sedition and subversion against Beijing. Its legislation failed in 2003 following mass protests and it remained taboo until after the onset of the separate, Beijing-imposed security law in 2020. Pro-democracy advocates fear it could have a negative effect on civil liberties but the authorities say there is a constitutional duty to ratify it.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

A new law under the city’s proposed homegrown national security legislation may see organisations accused of “external interference” dissolved if they are ordered to cease operations.

The proposed law intends to criminalise interfering with government, court, legislative, or electoral affairs by “improper means,” through collaboration with external forces, and comes with a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison, according to a bill tabled to the city’s legislature on Friday morning.

The Legislative Council convened a special meeting on Friday morning for the first reading of the Safeguarding National Security Bill – known locally as Article 23.

The introduction of the bill came just nine days after the end of a one-month public consultation period, which prompted more than 13,000 submissions, 97 per cent of which expressed support for the new security law, according to the government.

If it passes Hong Kong’s opposition-free legislature, the new law would empower the secretary for security to prohibit operations of an organisation if there is reason to believe that it is “necessary for safeguarding national security.”

See also: Hong Kong’s new national security law seeks to criminalise ‘external interference,’ cyber attacks

However, it was also proposed that such prohibition orders must not be made without first allowing the organisation “an opportunity to be heard or to make written representations” as to why such an order should not be made.

An organisation accused of external interference with bodies including foreign governments and political parties, as well as international organisations, “is dissolved on the taking effect of the order prohibiting the operation or continued operation of the organisation,” the bill reads.

Presumptions and implications

The bill proposes that a defendant is presumed to have acted on behalf of an external force if they communicated with the external force “in relation to the intent or a matter in connection with the intent” to cause interference.

The presumption also applies if the defendant knew, “or ought to have known”, that their actions would result in the force achieving its aims or otherwise benefit it.

The bill also proposes criminalising making “false or misleading representations” which “may be express or implied” to obscure an intent to cause interference with an external force.

Making false statements constitutes an “improper means” of causing interference, alongside using violence, destroying or damaging property, causing financial loss, or damaging a person’s reputation — or threatening to do so.

Knowingly making a false statement or causing “mental injury” or “undue mental pressure” also amounts to an improper means, according to the bill.

The bill proposes defining collaboration with an external force as participating in an activity planned or led by an external force; acting on behalf of, or in cooperation with an external force; acting under the control, supervision, or request of an external force; or acting with financial contributions from an external force.

It proposes that an “interference effect” takes the form of influencing Legislative Council members or interfering with any legislative processes, influencing court functions and the administration of justice, and interfering with any electoral process.

It also lists “prejudicing… the relationship between China and any foreign country,” between Beijing and the Hong Kong government, between Beijing and “any other region of China,” and the relationship between Hong Kong and “any foreign country” as a form of interference.

Article 23 of the Basic Law stipulates that the government shall enact laws on its own to prohibit acts of treason, secession, sedition and subversion against Beijing. Its legislation failed in 2003 following mass protests and it remained taboo until after the onset of the separate, Beijing-imposed security law in 2020. Pro-democracy advocates fear it could have a negative effect on civil liberties but the authorities say there is a constitutional duty to ratify it.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

Hong Kong’s existing early release schemes for prisoners may not apply to those who are serving time behind bars for an offence endangering national security, the draft of a new bill presented to the city’s legislature has revealed.

A national security prisoner may not be considered for an early release unless the corrections chief was satisfied that their parole would not “be contrary to the interest of national security,” the bill drafted under Article 23 of the Basic Law read.

If the draft bill passes Hong Kong’s opposition-free legislature, the threshold for early release of inmates convicted of endangering national security will apply “whether the sentence of the prisoner… was imposed before, on or after the commencement of” the security law.

Article 23 of the Basic Law stipulates that the government shall enact laws on its own to prohibit acts of treason, secession, sedition and subversion against Beijing. Its legislation failed in 2003 following mass protests and it remained taboo until after the onset of the separate, Beijing-imposed security law in 2020. Pro-democracy advocates fear it could have a negative effect on civil liberties but the authorities say there is a constitutional duty to ratify it.

According to the bill tabled at the legislature on Friday, the commissioner of correctional services must not refer the prisoner to the government-appointed Release under Supervision Board, unless they believed that releasing the prisoner early would not jeopardise national security.

At present, prisoners in Hong Kong may seek early release under the Release under Supervision Scheme and the Pre-release Employment Scheme.

The former programme allows an inmate who is serving a jail term of three years or more to apply for early release if he or she has served at least half or 20 months of their sentence. The prisoner may file the application six months before the earliest date on which they may be released under the scheme.

A supervision order would be imposed on those who were released early, until the day their full term ended.

The scheme was helpful to prisoners who had been “reformed” during their incarceration, but required assistance and guidance in adjusting to normal life following a long period of imprisonment, according to the Security Bureau website.

During the supervision period, the released individual is required to report to their supervising officer monthly and reside at an approved address. The individual may only undertake jobs authorised by the officer and any changes relating to their employment or residence must be reported within three days.

If the individual wants to leave Hong Kong or move abroad, they must seek instructions from the officer at least one week before. Without the officer’s approval, the released person shall refrain from associating with people with a criminal record, or those who have a connection with the offence they were convicted of.

The released individuals should also avoid visiting places linked to the offence they were convicted of and maintain good behaviour, the supervision order document read.

Prisoners serving a jail term of two years or above and who are within six months of their earliest date of discharge may pursue the Pre-release Employment Scheme. They can apply within 12 months from the earliest date of their release.

They are also subject to a list of supervision conditions, with an additional requirement of living in a hostel managed by the Correctional Services Department. They have to report to their approved workplace at a designated time and go back to the residence as soon as work ends. They also need to pay for their stay.

Under the proposed legislation, if the corrections chief decides not to refer the security law prisoner for early release consideration, the commissioner must review their decision annually.

Last month, Commissioner of Correctional Services Wong Kwok-hing said Hong Kong authorities were considering amending the law to bar prisoners who have been granted early release from leaving the city.

His comments came after pro-independence activist Tony Chung, who had been granted an early release from his national security jail term, left the city for the UK in December. Authorities have ordered the activist to return to prison, citing a breach of his post-prison supervision order.

The bill released on Friday did not mention any legislative amendment to bar released individuals from travelling.

Beijing inserted national security legislation directly into Hong Kong’s mini-constitution in June 2020 following a year of pro-democracy protests and unrest. It criminalised subversion, secession, collusion with foreign forces and terrorist acts – broadly defined to include disruption to transport and other infrastructure. The move gave police sweeping new powers and led to hundreds of arrests amid new legal precedents, while dozens of civil society groups disappeared. The authorities say it restored stability and peace to the city, rejecting criticism from trade partners, the UN and NGOs.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

Hong Kong’s homegrown security law may give authorities new powers to restrict those arrested under the legislation from consulting specific lawyers or barring them from accessing lawyers within their initial 48-hour detention period.

According to a draft of the Safeguarding National Security Bill published on Friday morning, police may apply for a court warrant to stop a suspect from consulting a lawyer if it is believed that their doing so “will endanger national security or cause bodily harm to any person. “

For those under investigation but not under arrest, a court warrant could be issued to bar them from meeting any lawyers during the initial 48-hour detention period after an arrest.

Such a warrant could only be granted if a magistrate thought there were “reasonable grounds to suspect that the person has committed the offence” or “the person is about to be arrested. “

The proposed bill stipulates that after the warrant expires and the authorities no longer have reasonable grounds, the limits on allowing suspects to access lawyers should immediately be lifted.

According to the draft bill, anyone “reasonably suspected of having committed an offence endangering national security” can be restricted from meeting specific lawyers by court-issued warrant.

Authorities have also sought to extend the period a suspect can be held without charge to 14 days, up from 48 hours.

Victor Dawes, chair of the Hong Kong Bar Association, told the press last month that the Basic Law stipulates that a defendant has the right to seek legal advice and to choose their own lawyer.

“Under Article 35 of the Basic Law, there is the right to confidential legal advice, and there is also a right to choose [a] lawyer that you so wish. So, it is really important to balance the two… particular rights and interests,” Dawes said.

Swift enactment

The Legislative Council convened a special meeting on Friday morning for the first reading of the Safeguarding National Security Bill – known locally as Article 23.

The introduction of the bill came just nine days after the end of a one-month public consultation period, which prompted more than 13,000 submissions, 97 per cent of which expressed support for the new security law, according to the government.

China’s Vice Premier Ding Xuexiang urged a swift enactment of legislation under Article 23 of Hong Kong’s mini-constitution on Thursday, as he held talks with the city’s deputies to the National People’s Congress, China’s legislature.

Article 23 of the Basic Law stipulates that the government shall enact laws on its own to prohibit acts of treason, secession, sedition and subversion against Beijing. Its legislation failed in 2003 following mass protests and it remained taboo until after the onset of the separate, Beijing-imposed security law in 2020. Pro-democracy advocates fear it could have a negative effect on civil liberties but the authorities say there is a constitutional duty to ratify it.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

The Hong Kong government may cancel the Hong Kong passports of security law “absconders” and ban providing them with financial support, a newly unveiled draft bill under Article 23 of the city’s mini-constitution has said.

According to the full bill released on Friday morning, the secretary for security may declare an individual charged under the proposed security legislation as an absconder if they have been issued an arrest warrant for at least six months, they have not appeared in front of a magistrate, and if the security chief “reasonably believes” the person is not in Hong Kong.

The declaration would enable the authorities in Hong Kong to impose a series of restrictions on the wanted individual, including annulling their Hong Kong passport and prohibiting anyone from providing them with funds or other financial assets, or handling their economic resources.

Funds would cover gold coin, cash, cheques, stocks and shares, deposits with financial institutions and dividends from property.

Those who breach the ban on provision of funds to an absconder could face up to seven years behind bars.

The draft law stated that reasonable steps should be taken to inform the wanted person about the warrant before the security minister made such a declaration.

See also: Article 23 then and now: What changed between 2002 and 2024, as Hong Kong’s local security law is resurrected

Under the proposed law, the authorities are also seeking to bar anyone from leasing a property to or from an absconder, and establishing or investing in a joint venture or partnership with a absconder. Violators could face a maximum penalty of seven years behind bars.

An absconder's professional qualifications would be suspended, while any business or employment permit or registration would be temporarily halted as well. If the absconder was a director of a company, they would be removed from office temporarily.

The Legislative Council convened a special meeting on Friday morning for the first reading of the Safeguarding National Security Bill – known locally as Article 23.

Article 23 of the Basic Law stipulates that the government shall enact laws on its own to prohibit acts of treason, secession, sedition and subversion against Beijing. Its legislation failed in 2003 following mass protests and it remained taboo until after the onset of the separate, Beijing-imposed security law in 2020. Pro-democracy advocates fear it could have a negative effect on civil liberties but the authorities say there is a constitutional duty to ratify it.

The introduction of the bill came just nine days after the end of a one-month public consultation period, which prompted more than 13,000 submissions, 97 per cent of which expressed support for the new security law, according to the government.

China’s Vice Premier Ding Xuexiang urged a swift enactment of legislation under Article 23 of Hong Kong's mini-constitution on Thursday, as he held talks with the city’s deputies to the National People’s Congress, China’s legislature.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

Hong Kong has revealed the draft text of its new, homegrown security law, set to arrive at the legislature on Friday. It comes just nine days after the end of a public consultation which prompted more than 13,000 submissions. HKFP shares the full text below – stay tuned as our team analyses its contents throughout the day.

The Legislative Council (LegCo) will convene a special meeting at 11 am on Friday for the first reading of the Safeguarding National Security Bill – or Article 23 – according to its schedule.

Chief Executive John Lee said in a statement on Thursday that he had notified LegCo President Andrew Leung that “both the government and the Legislative Council have the responsibility to, and must, make every endeavour to complete the enactment of the legislation at the earliest possible time.”

See also: Article 23 then and now: What changed between 2002 and 2024

Article 23 of the Basic Law stipulates that the government shall enact laws on its own to prohibit acts of treason, secession, sedition and subversion against Beijing. Its legislation failed in 2003 following mass protests and it remained taboo until after the onset of the separate, Beijing-imposed security law in 2020. Pro-democracy advocates fear it could have a negative effect on civil liberties but the authorities say there is a constitutional duty to ratify it.

The swift submission to lawmakers also came after China’s Vice Premier Ding Xuexiang urged a swift enactment of Article 23 earlier on Thursday, as he held talks with the city’s deputies to the National People’s Congress, China’s legislature.

According to local media reports, authorities hope to have the bill passed by National Security Education Day on April 15.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

Hong Kong will introduce its new, homegrown security law to the legislature on Friday, the government has announced, just nine days after the end of a public consultation which prompted more than 13,000 submissions.

The Legislative Council (LegCo) will convene a special meeting at 11 am on Friday for the bill’s first reading, according to its schedule.

Chief Executive John Lee said in a statement on Thursday that he had notified LegCo president Andrew Leung that “both the government and the Legislative Council have the responsibility to, and must, make every endeavour to complete the enactment of the legislation at the earliest possible time.”

He added that the council should consider convening special council meetings for the first and second readings of the bill, as well as a Bills Committee meeting order for the legislative process to be completed “at full speed.”

The announcement came after an urgent meeting of the Executive Council, the city’s top advisory body, on Thursday afternoon. In the statement, the government said the bill would fulfil Hong Kong’s “constitutional duty” of enacting security legislation under Article 23 of the Basic Law, the city’s mini-constitution.

See also: What is Article 23? Hong Kong’s homegrown security law is back in the spotlight

“The sooner the legislation is completed, the sooner national security can be effectively safeguarded, so that Hong Kong can focus on economic development, improve people’s livelihoods, and maintain Hong Kong’s long-term prosperity and stability,” Lee said in the statement.

The announcement also came after China’s Vice Premier Ding Xuexiang urged a swift enactment of Article 23 earlier on Thursday, as he held talks with the city’s deputies to the National People’s Congress, China’s legislature.

According to local media reports, authorities hope to have the bill passed by National Security Education Day on April 15.

Swift

The process of enacting the law began on January 30, when officials announced the opening of a public consultation period that closed a month later and elicited some 13,000 responses. Around 97 per cent of of the submissions received had expressed their support for the law, according to the government.

The proposed law seeks to criminalise five types of offences: treason, insurrection, theft of state secrets and espionage, sabotage, and external interference.

It also aims to introduce new measures to be imposed on suspects, including requiring them to reside at a specified residence, and barring a detained suspect from consulting specific lawyers, according to the 110-page consultation paper released when the public consultation began.

Article 23 of the Basic Law stipulates that the government shall enact laws on its own to prohibit acts of treason, secession, sedition and subversion against Beijing. Its legislation failed in 2003 following mass protests and it remained taboo until after the onset of the separate, Beijing-imposed security law in 2020. Pro-democracy advocates fear it could have a negative effect on civil liberties but the authorities say there is a constitutional duty to ratify it.

Additional reporting: James Lee and Hans Tse

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

International news outlet Bloomberg has admitted an error in reporting that Hong Kong planned to ban some social media under its new security law, as the government condemned the “false report” and denied any such intention.

The government on Wednesday night issued a statement saying it “strongly disapproves of and condemns false reports by Bloomberg” on Basic Law Article 23 legislation – a homegrown security law now being drafted that is separate from the Beijing-imposed national security law already in force.

The government said Bloomberg’s headlines published earlier on Wednesday – which it quoted as reading “HK says Telegram should be prohibited in Article 23 proposal” and “HK says Signal should be prohibited in Article 23 proposal” – and a report headlined “HK Security Law Public Consultation Lists Facebook, YouTube Ban” – were false.

They generated “misunderstanding and panic” about the upcoming legislation, it said.

As of Thursday morning, the Bloomberg article on the matter had been updated with a new headline “Hong Kong Says City Won’t Prohibit Popular Messaging Apps.” It also stated that “Bloomberg earlier erroneously reported the government was proposing such a ban.”

The row came after the government on Wednesday submitted a summary of public views on the new law to the legislature, in which some residents had suggested banning Facebook and YouTube, as well as messaging apps Telegram and Signal.

Authorities said about 97 per cent of the 13,000-odd submissions it had received over a one-month consultation period were supportive of the proposed law, which targets five areas of national security crimes.

Secretary for Justice Paul Lam said during a legislature panel on Wednesday that the government had “absolutely no intention” of banning any social media platforms, adding that he believed “such scaremongering was spread with an intention to obstruct the legislation.”

Top Hong Kong officials have become increasingly active in rebutting foreign news reports and editorials with which they take issue.

See also: After US newspaper accuses Wall Street execs of ‘kissing John Lee’s ring,’ Hong Kong gov’t slams ‘biased’ editorial

The proposed Article 23 legislation is set to cover five types of crime: treason, insurrection, theft of state secrets and espionage, sabotage endangering national security, and external interference. A bill is expected to be submitted to the legislature as early as next Wednesday, according to local media.

An attempt to pass a homegrown security law in 2003 was dropped after an estimated 500,000 people took to the streets in protest. Authorities have vowed to complete the latest legislation this year, saying it was Hong Kong’s constitutional duty.

Article 23 of the Basic Law, the city’s mini-constitution, requires the passage of a domestically-drafted security law.

Pro-democracy advocates – including one of the few remaining opposition parties the League of Social Democrats – fear it could have a negative effect on civil liberties, but authorities maintain that the public supports the legislation.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

Pro-democracy radio DJ Tam Tak-chi has lost a bid to appeal his conviction and 40-month sentence under the city’s colonial-era sedition law, in a case that promises to have far-reaching ramifications for Hong Kong’s legal landscape.

Better known as “Fast Beat,” Tam launched his appeal bid last July, after being found guilty of 11 charges, including seven counts of “uttering seditious words,” in March 2022. He was sentenced the following month.

Tam stood accused of chanting the controversial slogan “liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times,” a phrase ruled as capable of inciting others to commit secession in the city’s first national security trial. He was also accused of insulting the police by describing them as “damned black cops.”

The Court of Appeal on Thursday ruled that Tam did not need to have an intention to incite violence to be found guilty of sedition, and that sedition offences must be interpreted with respect to the “specific legal and social landscape” to which they pertain.

During the appeal hearing last July, Tam’s barrister Philip Dykes argued that Hong Kong’s sedition law fell short of international standards as it failed to include a defendant’s intent to incite violence as an essential element of the offence.

Dykes argued at Tam’s trial – the city’s first for sedition since its return from British to Chinese rule in 1997 – that the prosecution had failed to prove that Tam intended to incite violence. As a result, the sedition law constituted a disproportionate restriction of freedom of speech and expression.

But the prosecution argued that sedition charges were statutory offences and thus it was not necessary to prove an intention to incite violence.

Thursday’s ruling breaks away from a decision by the UK’s Privy Council – a leading common law authority – identifying “an intention to incite violence or disorder” as an essential element of the sedition offence.

The judges said it “has reservations” as to whether that decision was applicable to Hong Kong’s sedition law, and that “[s]editious intention in any given criminal code must be interpreted by reference to the specific legal and social landscape in which it exists.”

The court on Thursday ruled that the sedition law’s restriction on the right to free expression in the interest of safeguarding national security was constitutional.

“Sedition offences must be flexible enough to cope with the change in time and circumstances, such as societal evolution or political climate,” High Court judges Jeremy Poon, Derek Pang and Anthea Pang said in the 100-page judgement.

The judges also said that, to enable a timely and effective response to seditious acts or activities endangering national security, “seditious intention has to be broadly framed to encompass a myriad of situations that may arise in different and changing circumstances at different times.”

Impact of ruling

The impact of Thursday’s judgement will be felt in other high-profile cases.

The verdict in the trial of two former editors of independent news outlet Stand News charged with conspiring to publish seditious publications was delayed pending the outcome of Tam’s appeal, with a ruling expected within 30 days of Thursday’s judgement.

Separately, an appeal application from a 19-year-old convicted of sedition and insulting national symbols was put on hold until after the Court of Appeal had ruled on Tam’s case. The court said last July that it would hear that appeal within two weeks of the ruling on Tam’s.

Sedition is not covered by the Beijing-imposed national security law, which targets secession, subversion, collusion with foreign forces and terrorist acts and mandates up to life imprisonment. Those convicted under the sedition law – last amended in the 1970s when Hong Kong was still a British colony – face a maximum penalty of two years in prison.

More to come – refresh for updates…

Additional reporting: Mercedes Hutton

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

The Hong Kong government has said it was considering giving police a new power to detain those arrested under a proposed new security law for up to 14 days.

In a paper submitted to the Legislative Council on Wednesday summarising views on its proposed security legislation, the government said it was considering extending the period it could detain someone arrested on suspicion of breaching that law without charging them to up to 14 days after the initial 48-hours detention had expired.

The power of further detaining arrestees should be granted by a magistrate, the document states.

Currently, anyone arrested in Hong Kong cannot be held for longer than 48 hours, after which the person must be released or charged.

A one-month public consultation period for the enactment of security legislation under Article 23 of the city’s mini-constitution closed on February 28, with the government saying that 99 per cent of the submissions received expressed support for the new law.

The proposed law seeks to criminalise five types of offences: treason, insurrection, theft of state secrets and espionage, sabotage, and external interference.

It also aims to introduce new measures to be imposed on suspects, including requiring suspects to reside at a specified residence, and barring a detained suspect from consulting specific lawyers, according to the 110-page consultation paper released when the public consultation began in late January.

Victor Dawes, chair of the Hong Kong Bar Association, told the press last month that the Basic Law stipulates that a defendant has the right to seek confidential legal advice and to choose their own lawyer.

On Wednesday, the government revealed in its summary that it was considering empowering a magistrate direct someone on bail to reside in a specified place during the specified period.

It also proposed introducing another new offence, “no prejudicing of investigation of offences endangering national security.”

It did not mention whether the legislation would prevent detained suspects from consulting specific lawyers, as included in the consultation document.

99 per cent

Authorities said on February 29, one day after the end of the public consultation period, that they had received 13,147 submissions about the new legislation. That marked 15 per cent of the more than 90,000 views received during the same exercise in 2002, when a three-month consultation period was held.

Almost 99 per cent of public consultation participants support Hong Kong’s looming homegrown security law, the Security Bureau said citing provisional figures.

Article 23 of the Basic Law stipulates that the government shall enact laws on its own to prohibit acts of treason, secession, sedition and subversion against Beijing. Its legislation failed in 2003 following mass protests and it remained taboo until after the onset of the separate, Beijing-imposed security law in 2020. Pro-democracy advocates fear it could have a negative effect on civil liberties but the authorities say there is a constitutional duty to ratify it.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

A former Apple Daily editorial writer penned opinion pieces expressing pro-democracy views in line with those held by the newspaper’s founder, detained media mogul Jimmy Lai, a landmark national security trial has heard.

A panel of three designated national security judges heard on Wednesday that Yeung Ching-kee, who managed a commentary section in the paper, wrote op-eds expressing pro-democracy views consistent with those of his boss.

Lai, 76, in on trial after pleading guilty to two counts of conspiring to collude with foreign forces under the Beijing-imposed security law. He also pleaded not guilty to one count of conspiring to publish “seditious” materials under the colonial-era sedition law. If convicted, he could spend the rest of his life in prison.

Consistent stance

Yeung, who earlier pleaded guilty to taking part in a conspiracy to collude with foreign forces and is testifying against Lai for the prosecution, told the court on Wednesday that all editorial writers followed the “basic stance” of the paper. “That is, we had to take note of Lai’s views and stance, so during the anti-[extradition] movement, there wasn’t a big difference between editorial writers’ stances,” Yeung said.

“We all supported the resistance and hoped the government would withdraw the fugitive bill. This was consistent with the views expressed by Lai in his own column calling for citizens to take to the streets,” he added.

He was referring to a proposed amendment to the city’s extradition bill that would have allowed the transfer of fugitives to mainland China, and which sparked large-scale protests in 2019.

See more: Hong Kong’s Apple Daily stopped pursuing balanced reporting after security law enactment, court hears

Editorial writers’ views on sanctions against Hong Kong politicians were also consistent with Lai’s own, and with public opinion at the time, Yeung told the court.

Presented with a line in an editorial he had written that read, “Hongkongers will not kneel, will not compromise; peaceful and valiant protesters will be as one; the Hong Kong international front will resist to the end,” Yeung said such views were shared by Lai.

Prosecutor Ivan Cheung pointed to a line in the piece that read: “If the Chinese Communist Party and the Hong Kong communists want mutually assured destruction, then bring it on.”

Asked to clarify what he meant, Yeung said: “I think my words are self-explanatory. I have no further comment.”

In another editorial published on May 26, 2020, just days after China’s top law-making body was given authorisation to enact the Hong Kong’s national security law, Yeung expressed views that the legislation would “destroy freedom and democracy” in Hong Kong.

That view was shared by Lai, as well as the paper itself, Yeung said.

Commentaries ‘definitely’ published

Yeung also told the court that commentary articles he received from Lai would “definitely” be published if there were no issues with them.

He told the court that the paper ran a piece titled “A brief talk about Xi Jinping’s ruling style,” which he had received from Lai.

“No matter what, we should protest against and condemn [the Chinese Communist Party] with our conscience, justice, and rationality,” read the letter, originally written in Chinese.

Yeung said that he made alterations to the headline and the text before publishing the story, adding that Lai had not read the original commentary when he received it.

Prosecutor Ivan Cheung asked whether the piece was consistent with Lai’s views, to which defence counsel Robert Pang objected, repeating Yeung’s remark that Lai had not read the actual commentary.

Judge Esther Toh agreed with Pang, while Judge Alex Lee said that Cheung was asking for Yeung’s opinion, rather than a statement of fact.

Cheung presented another commentary, sent to the Apple Daily offices in Tseung Kwan O in the form of a letter, in which a “new reader” of the newspaper provided recommendations for the paper’s commentary section, including that it should introduce more pro-establishment views.

The unnamed author wrote in the introduction: “Apple is no longer just a newspaper, it has become the symbol of seeking for democracy and freedom, protesting against power. I, just like many other Hongkongers, suddenly became a reader of Apple.”

Attached to a hard copy of the letter was a post-it note by Lai, telling Yeung that the reader’s opinions were “worth considering.”

Yeung told the court that Apple Daily also republished commentary articles from its Taiwan arm about the 2019 protests and unrest.

The articles had two “angles,” Yeung said: to support the resistance of the Hong Kong people and to call for international attention.

Lai’s trial began on December 18 last year, by which time he had already spent more than 1,000 days in custody. In a departure from the city’s common law traditions, three judges handpicked by Hong Kong’s leader to hear national security cases are presiding over Lai’s trial in the place of a jury.

Yeung is among six former senior Apple Daily executives who pleaded guilty to conspiring to collude with foreign forces, and the third to take the stand against their former boss.

Beijing inserted national security legislation directly into Hong Kong’s mini-constitution in June 2020 following a year of pro-democracy protests and unrest. It criminalised subversion, secession, collusion with foreign forces and terrorist acts – broadly defined to include disruption to transport and other infrastructure.

The move gave police sweeping new powers and led to hundreds of arrests amid new legal precedents, while dozens of civil society groups disappeared. The authorities say it restored stability and peace to the city, rejecting criticism from trade partners, the UN and NGOs.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

Hong Kong officials have pushed back against public suggestions that some popular social media platforms and messaging apps should be “banned” under a proposed new security legislation, saying they had “absolutely no intention” in doing so.

Secretary for Justice Paul Lam on Wednesday said authorities had no plan to prohibit social media platforms from operating in Hong Kong, after some residents had made the suggestion that “websites such as Facebook and YouTube should be removed from the Hong Kong market.”

Lam was addressing lawmakers during a panel on the legislation of the new security law, known as the Basic Law Article 23, when the suggestion came into the spotlight.

Authorities said a one-month consultation period for the legislation which ended last Wednesday had drawn over 13,000 submissions, of which about 97 per cent were supportive of the proposed law, which targets five areas of crimes including theft of state secrets and external interference.

In a summary of public views submitted to the legislature, one suggestion submitted to the government involved banning messaging apps Telegram and Signal, saying they “have become a hotbed of crime… for co-ordination of activities, dissemination of seditious information and so forth.”

The government said in the document that it had noted the suggestions without indicating a stance on them.

Regina Ip, chairperson of the pro-Beijing New People’s Party and a top government advisor, urged the government to clearly explain its response to the suggestions during Wednesday’s panel, citing a Bloomberg article that highlighted the matter, which Ip accused of “scaremongering.”

“I can firmly say that we have absolutely no intention to ban any social media,” Lam said in Cantonese.

“Social media is just a tool. We are only targeting the people who utilise, abuse, or misuse the tools to disseminate speech that endangers national security,” he said. “We are targeting the content, the people who make such speeches, instead of social media platforms.”

He said the idea that Hong Kong would ban social media platforms “did not sound reasonable at all” and urged residents to focus on discussing the details of the legislation.

Speaking in the same panel, Secretary for Security Chris Tang also accused Bloomberg’s report of taking words out of context by highlighting one suggestion among many in the summary.

“There are numerous suggestions and we could not have possibly accepted all of them. We have to view them holistically, in accordance with our legislative purpose,” Tang added in Cantonese.

Public interest defence

Separately, Lam said that the city’s legal profession had submitted different views on whether the proposed legislation should include a “public interest defence” for offences relating to “unlawful disclosure of state secrets”.

The Hong Kong Bar Association and the Law Society of Hong Kong, two major professional bodies for the city’s legal professionals, had earlier argued that people disclosing state information in the public interest should be able to invoke such a defence to be exempted from the offence.

But Lam said there were those in the legal profession who said the inclusion of a public interest defence would create “loopholes and uncertainty,” and that it could be left to the discretion of the prosecution to not lay a charge in cases involving public interest.

He said that the government was considering the proposals, but that even if such a defence is included, the threshold of proving an overriding public interest above national security would be “extremely high” and the burden of proof would be borne by the defendants.

Article 23 stands apart from the Beijing-imposed security law, which criminalises secession, subversion, foreign collusion and terrorism.

While the previous legislative attempt of Article 23 in 2003 failed after an estimated 500,000 people took to the street in protests, authorities have vowed to complete its legislation within this year, saying it was Hong Kong’s “constitutional duty.”

Pro-democracy advocates – including one of the few remaining opposition parties the League of Social Democrats – fear it could have a negative effect on civil liberties, but authorities maintained that the “majority” of public opinion had supported the legislation.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

Five people have been charged in Hong Kong for perversion of justice and money laundering, including a man who allegedly received HK$1.5 million to stage crimes when he was on remand so that two fellow detainees could tip off the police in exchange for shorter sentence in their separate cases.

The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) on Tuesday said it had arrested and charged Sammy Wong, 39, who was an inmate of Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre, and four others over their roles in allegedly arranging arms, explosives or dangerous drugs to be concealed at two premises.

The anti-graft watchdog said Wong became acquainted with two other inmates when he was held at the reception centre between September 2021 and May 2022. The duo were involved in separate robbery and dangerous drugs trafficking cases and were at the reception centre pending appearances at the High Court.

The ICAC alleged that Wong instructed his girlfriend Lau Chun-yee, 27, and an associate Kwan Yu-hin, 24, to arrange the concealment of unlawful arms, explosives or dangerous drugs at two premises, where two persons would be present.

It said the two inmates facing the High Court cases would then expose the crime to the police, so they could apply for reduced sentences.

The two inmates and their family members allegedly paid a total of HK$1.5 million to Wong in exchange for the arrangements.

Wong, Lau, and Kwan face two counts of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice over the alleged scheme.

The ICAC also said that Wong had provided HK$319,500 to two other associates – Wan Chin-pang, 27, and Cheng Lok-lam, 24 – to help coordinate the alleged scheme. Wan and Cheng have been charged with one count of “dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of indictable offence.”

The five will appear at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts on Wednesday, pending the transfer of their case to the District Court for plea.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

Seven veteran democrats have been allowed to appeal their convictions over a protest in 2019 at the city’s top court.

Veteran democrat Martin Lee and media tycoon Jimmy Lai, along with ex-lawmakers Lee Cheuk-yan, Margaret Ng, Leung Kwok-hung, Cyd Ho, and Albert Ho, will have their challenge heard at the Court of Final Appeal on June 24.

The top court, meanwhile, denied the Department of Justice’s application to overturn the democrats’ acquittal over organising the same assembly on August 18, 2019, ruling that the fact that the defendants had marched and held a banner at the head of the procession did not mean that they had organised it. The court had already said two weeks ago that it would dismiss the application.

According to the apex court’s judgement on Tuesday, the prosecution’s case was “not reasonably arguable.”

At the time of the demonstration, Hong Kong was seeing large-scale protests sparked by a controversial extradition bill that would have allowed the transfer of fugitives to mainland China. The unrest ballooned into city-wide demonstrations against the Hong Kong and Beijing governments, and the police’s alleged use of brutality to disperse protesters.

Fundamental rights

The top court will hear arguments on whether it should follow a 2021 UK Supreme Court decision that saw protesters acquitted after the judge took into consideration the police’s disproportionate interference of their rights.

In their veteran democrats’ submissions, several defendants asked the court to take into account their fundamental rights of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.

See also: 7 veteran Hong Kong democrats launch bid to appeal unauthorised assembly convictions linked to 2019 protest

Justice Roberto Ribeiro, one of the judges overseeing the case, said some of the defence’s arguments “raises issues of great and general importance which would benefit from consideration from the Court.”

Arguments refuted

The court refused, however, to consider the defence’s contention last month that the maximum sentence of five years for participating in a “peaceful” and “nonviolent” unauthorised assembly constituted a “chilling effect.”

“That argument cannot be accepted,” the court’s judgement read. “The statutory maximum gives the court a discretion as to possible sentences ranging from non-custodial measures to the five-year maximum (only on a trial on indictment).”

Senior Counsel Priscilia Lam, a private lawyer representing the Department of Justice, argued at last month’s hearing that the maximum penalty was reserved for the worst case scenario where “peaceful demonstration can turn into violent protest.”

The Court of Appeal last August ruled that the “water flow” assembly, whereby attendees would dynamically weave in and out of Victoria Park, was a “ruse” to circumvent the assembly’s lack of police approval.

The top court agreed with that decision, saying that the defendants’ view that they had merely involved themselves in helping to disperse the crowd safety at the end of the assembly at Victoria Park was not reasonably arguable.

Illegal assembly

The democrats were found guilty of both organising and knowingly participating in an unauthorised assembly after a trial in April 2021. They were given jail terms of up to 18 months while Martin Lee, Albert Ho, and Margaret Ng received suspended sentences.

But the Court of Appeal in August last year quashed their convictions over the organisation charge, ruling that standing in the front rows of a march did not amount to organising it. The appellate court upheld the participation charge, whilst the city’s top court – on Friday – upheld the acquittal over organising the demonstration.

Protests erupted in June 2019 over a since-axed extradition bill. They escalated into sometimes violent displays of dissent against police behaviour, amid calls for democracy and anger over Beijing’s encroachment.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team