By Alex Pigman

The US House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a bill on Wednesday that would force TikTok to divest from its Chinese owner or be banned from the United States.

The legislation is a major setback for the video-sharing app, which has surged in popularity across the world while causing nervousness about its Chinese ownership and its potential subservience to the Communist Party in Beijing.

The lawmakers voted 352 in favor of the proposed law and 65 against, in a rare moment of unity in politically divided Washington.

The warning shot against the app caught many by surprise as both Republicans and Democrats risked the wrath of TikTok’s passionate young users in an election year when the youth vote will be key.

“Today’s bipartisan vote demonstrates Congress’ opposition to Communist China’s attempts to spy on and manipulate Americans, and signals our resolve to deter our enemies,” Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson said after the vote.

“I urge the Senate to pass this bill and send it to the President so he can sign it into law.”

But the fate of the bill is uncertain in the more cautious Senate, where some are apprehensive of making a drastic move against an app that has 170 million US users.

President Joe Biden will sign the bill, known officially as the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, into law if it came to his desk, the White House has said.

“This process was secret and the bill was jammed through for one reason: it’s a ban,” said a spokesperson for TikTok in a statement.

“We are hopeful that the Senate will consider the facts, listen to their constituents, and realize the impact on the economy, 7 million small businesses, and the 170 million Americans who use our service,” the spokesperson added.

Majority leader Chuck Schumer, who will need to back the bill, remained non-comital saying only that the Senate “will review” the legislation when it comes over from the House.

The measure, which only gained momentum in the past few days, requires TikTok’s parent company ByteDance to sell the app within 180 days or see it barred from the Apple and Google app stores in the United States.

It also gives the president power to designate other applications to be a national security threat if they are under the control of a country considered adversarial to the US.

The renewed campaign against TikTok came out of the blue to the company, the Wall Street Journal reported, with TikTok executives reassured when Biden joined the app last month as part of his campaign for a second term.

TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew is in Washington, trying to stop progress on the bill.

The Trump factor

China warned on Wednesday that the move will “inevitably come back to bite the United States.”

“Although the United States has never found evidence that TikTok threatens US national security, it has not stopped suppressing TikTok,” foreign ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin said, condemning it as “bullying behavior.”

Republican lawmakers approved the bill, in an unusual act of defiance against Donald Trump.

In a turnaround from his earlier stance, Trump on Monday said he was against a ban, mainly because it would strengthen Meta, the owner of Instagram and Facebook, which he called an “enemy of the people.”

When Trump was president, he attempted to wrest control of TikTok from ByteDance, but was blocked by US courts.

“I think it will die in the Senate,” said representative Nancy Mace, a Trump ally. “This is not our job to do this.”

Other efforts to ban TikTok have failed, with a bill proposed a year ago getting nowhere largely over free speech concerns.

Similarly, a state law passed in Montana banning the platform was suspended by a federal court on the suspicion that it violated constitutional free speech rights.

TikTok staunchly denies any ties to the Chinese government and has restructured the company so the data of US users stays in the country with independent oversight, the company says.

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

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

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

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

By Jing Xuan Teng

China’s leaders on Monday wrapped up a week-long key conclave at which they admitted more was needed to revive a sluggish economy battered by an ailing housing market, poor domestic demand and record-high youth unemployment figures.

Top officials have been upfront about the myriad challenges China is facing, admitting that a modest five percent growth goal will not be easy and that “hidden risks” are dragging the economy down.

But details of how they plan to tackle the problems have been scant. They have also simultaneously moved to deepen powers to deal with threats to their rule and tightened a veil of secrecy around policymaking, scrapping a traditional annual press conference and vowing to include national security provisions into a raft of new laws.

Delegates to the National People’s Congress (NPC), China’s parliament, gathered at Beijing’s Great Hall of the People to rubber-stamp legislation at 3:00 pm local time (0700 GMT) as the conclave came to an end.

Among the legislation approved was a revision to the Organic Law of the State Council, China’s cabinet, which state media has said will aim to deepen the “leadership” of the ruling Communist Party over the government.

They also approved the country’s state budget and the national economic and social development plan for 2024.

Only a handful of the body’s almost 3,000 delegates voted against any of the motions.

The tightly choreographed event capped a week of high-level meetings that have been dominated by the economy, which last year posted some of its slowest growth in years.

On Saturday, ministers pledged to do more to boost employment and stabilise the country’s troubled property market.

“Workers face some challenges and problems in employment, and more effort needs to be made to stabilise employment,” Wang Xiaoping, minister of human resources and social security, told a press conference.

And housing minister Ni Hong added that fixing the property market — which long accounted for around a quarter of China’s economy — remained “very difficult”.

More action needed

Despite official pledges of fresh support, analysts say they are yet to see the kinds of big-ticket bailouts the flagging economy needs if it is to rebound.

“Reviving the economy requires boosting household wealth and income, something China’s leaders clearly aren’t yet ready to do,” said analysts at Trivium, a research firm specialising in China, in a note.

And throughout the “Two Sessions”, officials have appeared reluctant to face questioning about the myriad economic headwinds China is confronting.

Last week, they broke a decades-long tradition by scrapping a press conference by the premier — long a rare chance for foreign media to question the country’s number-two official.

The topic was swiftly removed from search results on Chinese social media giant Weibo, as was a hashtag declaring “middle-class children have no future”.

Lawmakers have also vowed to adopt wide-ranging security laws in 2024 to “resolutely safeguard” the country’s sovereignty, further expanding the Communist Party’s powers to punish threats to its rule.

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

China has intensified efforts to block software that enables internet users to access banned websites during a top political meeting this week, a leading provider of firewall-leaping software told AFP.

Beijing operates some of the world’s most extensive censorship over the internet, with web users in mainland China unable to access everything from Google to news websites without using a virtual private network (VPN).

And as thousands of delegates gather in Beijing this week for the annual “Two Sessions” meeting, VPN software has increasingly struggled to circumvent the censorship while outages have become much more frequent, even when compared to during previous sensitive political events.

“Currently, there is increased censorship due to political meetings in China,” a representative of the Liechtenstein-based service Astrill — one of the most popular VPN services for foreigners in China — confirmed to AFP.

“Unfortunately, not all VPN protocols are functioning at this time,” they said.

“We are working intensively on bringing all services back to normal, but currently have no ETA.”

The use of a VPN without government authorisation is illegal in China, as is using the software to access blocked websites.

State media workers and diplomats, however, are allowed to access prohibited websites such as X, formerly Twitter.

Security has tightened across Beijing throughout the Two Sessions, with security officers patrolling streets with sniffer dogs and elderly volunteers in red armbands monitoring pedestrians for suspicious behaviour.

Chinese social media giant Weibo has also been quick to block sensitive topics.

All hashtags discussing Beijing’s decision to call off a traditional press conference by the country’s premier were quickly removed from search results.

And another, a reference to China’s economic woes declaring “middle class children have no future” was also removed.

China’s domestic media is state-controlled and widespread censorship of social media is often used to suppress negative stories or critical coverage.

Regulators have previously urged investors to avoid reading foreign news reports about China.

In a speech last year, President Xi Jinping said the ruling Communist Party’s control of the internet had been “strengthened”, and that it was crucial that the state “govern cyberspace”.

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

By Peter Martell and Tenzin Sangmo

From teaching centuries-old crafts to cataloguing their language, exiled Tibetans guard the cultural identity of a homeland most have neither seen nor dare visit, and where they say Beijing is eradicating their heritage.

Crouched over a minutely detailed devotional “thangka” painting depicting Buddha, artist Lobsang Tenzin teaches students in northern India.

“It is important to keep the traditions of our history,” said the 49-year-old, dipping a needle-thin brush into rich blue paint made from crushed lapis lazuli as six young Tibetan trainees watch.

“These skills were nearly lost, but we pass on the skills by teaching young artists.”

Tibetans will on March 10 mark the 65th anniversary of the 1959 uprising against Chinese forces that led to their spiritual leader the Dalai Lama fleeing into exile, followed by tens of thousands of compatriots.

Inside Tibet, the chaos of China’s 1966-76 Cultural Revolution left temples razed and monasteries reduced to ruins, destruction that continued in the decades that followed.

Today, activists decry what they say are Beijing’s determined efforts to erase what is left of Tibet’s cultural and religious identity.

Lhadon Tethong, head of the Tibet Action Institute, condemns what she calls “cultural genocide” — including Beijing’s sharp restrictions on Tibetan language, with children “indoctrinated” at state-run boarding schools.

Beijing, which maintains “Tibet is part of China”, fiercely rejects the accusations.

Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning this week said that people in Tibet are “living a happy life”, in response to UN rights chief Volker Turk’s assertion that China was violating fundamental rights.

Tibet enjoys “social stability, economic growth, solidarity among all ethnic groups and harmony among various religious beliefs”, she said.

‘Former glory’

Tibet scholar Robert Barnett, from SOAS University of London, called Beijing a “foreign ruler deciding what’s best for a people whose culture it barely knows”.

“There is a gradual whittling away of a culture and a history,” Barnett said.

“It is a process where you gradually eliminate all the elements of a history, a people, culture and of a society that are inconvenient to the new rulers.”

Tibetan authorities say there are 130,000 Tibetan exiles, many in India and Nepal but also in more than 25 countries worldwide — just a fraction of the seven million living under China’s control.

As the decades pass, that makes the preservation of cultural identity even more challenging.

Tenzin studied and now teaches at the Norbulingka Institute, a social enterprise centre training more than 300 men and women in painting, embroidery, weaving and woodcarving.

The complex of red and green Tibetan-style buildings, close to the Dalai Lama’s base in India’s Himalayan hill town of Dharamsala, was launched in 1995 to employ highly skilled artisans eking out a living with repair jobs.

“After the great masters came to India, they ended up doing odd jobs, trying to build their lives in a new country,” said Tsultrim Dorjee, a senior manager at the institute.

“The institute helped them use their skills… the goal was to return Tibetan art to its former glory.”

Others take a more modern approach, like 29-year-old artist Tashi Nyima, with his bright cartoon-style canvases that nonetheless still reflect his people’s heritage and political battles.

Born and brought up in Dharamsala, where red-robed monks and nuns crowd streets alongside Tibetans in baseball caps and jeans, Nyima said younger generations struggle with a “very mixed identity”.

But he remains committed to the cause.

“I’ve always believed that Tibet will be free one day,” he said, in front of his painting of a shackled monk.

“If I didn’t have this belief in me, I wouldn’t have done these kinds of works — I would have just stopped.”

‘Long haul’

Another battle is keeping the language alive.

While Google Translate offers 133 languages, Tibetan is not among them — but exiles in 2022 released their own 223-volume dictionary, available online.

“Once the language is preserved, then everything falls in place,” said Dorji Damdul, director of Tibet House in New Delhi, founded by the Dalai Lama to promote his people’s heritage.

“Language is like the medium through which all the flow of culture and philosophy happens.”

But young Tibetans in India are increasingly seeking opportunities in Europe and North America.

Damdul, born in India in 1968 and a former translator for the Dalai Lama, admits that keeping an identity alive is a “major challenge”.

“In Tibet, assimilation by force happens with the communist Chinese,” said the Buddhist scholar. “In the West, natural assimilation can happen because it’s too free.”

Tibet’s Dharamsala-based government in exile says it is looking to keep the increasingly scattered community connected, including via online conferences teaching younger generations about their history.

“If they understand Tibet a little more, they could be the best advocates,” said Penpa Tsering, elected as the government’s sikyong, or leader, by Tibetans worldwide.

“Even though we are physically distant, we are mentally close together.”

Tsering’s administration oversees more than 60 Tibetan language schools in India and Nepal and supports nearly 300 monasteries and nunneries.

“We are here for the long haul,” said Tsering. “Don’t think that we’ll vanish just like that.”

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

Two recently published books shed light on the relations between central and local authorities in mainland China, and provide valuable lessons for Hong Kong.

In one, we see that local politicians in Wuhan failed to learn the lessons of SARS, repeating mistakes during the outbreak of Covid-19 that had disastrous consequences for the country and the world. They operated in a system designed centrally that prioritised politics and stability above all else.

In the other, we see that local politicians not only accepted instructions and advice from central authorities, but also actively, persistently, and effectively represented local interests to central authorities. Both cases, one negative and the other positive, offer something for us to learn from.

Yang Dali’s new book, Wuhan: How the Covid-19 Outbreak Spiraled Out of Control, published by Oxford University Press, shows the shocking consequences of prioritising politics and stability over science when Covid-19 emerged in the central Chinese city of Wuhan, with a population of 11 million.

Yang’s day-by-day account covering the period from December 8, 2019 to the end of the Wuhan lockdown on April 8, 2020, shows how the Chinese Communist Party’s culture of “telling good stories” smothered attempts by clinicians in hospitals and labs to report the dire situation on the ground. As a result, city and provincial leaders, wrapped in a political cocoon, repeatedly lied to central authorities and the public.

According to Yang, local authorities designed elaborate strategies to suppress information about the infectiousness of the disease and clear evidence of human-to-human transmission, allowing the virus to spread throughout the community and beyond. The police, a key part of the stability-maintaining apparatus, vigorously suppressed the many whistleblowers in Wuhan who tried to break through the local party’s wall of silence, Li Wenliang among them.

Local officials, ever vigilant, aggressively censored the national online disease reporting system that would have alerted officials outside of Wuhan and Hubei province, and in Beijing. Local authorities repeatedly concealed from visiting investigation teams the fact that scores of medical personnel in Wuhan hospitals were sick with what came to be called Covid-19.

As Yang points out, central authorities admonished the visiting investigation teams to defer to local authorities “under the[centrally-designed] principal of territorial management, the locals are in charge, and you experts are there to provide assistance.”

As we know, the wall of silence eventually crumbled. The World Health Organization (WHO) first found out about a possible outbreak of a “viral pneumonia of uncertain etiology” from social media. In other words, similar to the SARS outbreak in 2003, China did not initiate reporting to the WHO in accordance with the International Health Regulations.

From Ma Xiao’s book, Localized Bargaining: The Political Economy of China’s High-Speed Railway Program, published by the Oxford University Press in 2022, we see central-local relations in an entirely different light.

Ma traces in great detail how local officials in Jiangsu’s Yancheng city, population 8 million, lobbied and won the extension of high-speed rail to their city, “tirelessly travelling to relevant departments in Beijing and the provincial capital to make the case for the city.”

These efforts involved both the mayor and the party secretary who mobilised the community. They visited the National Development and Reform Commission and the Ministry of Railways/China Railway Corporation “numerous times.” The lobbying spanned over a decade.

Local officials leveraged their positions in the party and state hierarchies. They used local social elites to mobilise “spontaneous expressions of demand for policy benefits by grassroots constituents (e.g., protests) to put pressure on their superiors and extract policy concessions.”

After doubts, delays, and false starts, they succeeded. Yancheng Station opened on December 16, 2019.

Ma shows us what is expected of local officials in mainland China. Hong Kong, by contrast, apparently resisted a high-speed railway station, and only after much discussion, protests, and court cases was a deal finally done.

My point is not about high-speed rail, but about the representation of Hong Kong in the places that matter. Most crucially, these include party committees such as the Central Hong Kong and Macau Work Leading Small Group and Central Committee. The Hong Kong government has no representation on either of these central bodies and yet they make policy on and for Hong Kong.

In the high-speed rail case, local officials lobbied provincial party and government agencies and State Council offices and a ministry turned state-owned enterprise.

The two books taken together reveal much about central-local relations in which Hong Kong is embedded. In both cases a common incentive system for local officials is at play. The system rewards local leaders with promotion for performance. How to define performance depends on the context.

In the Wuhan case, the centrally imposed incentive system led authorities to value politics and stability over science. Local officials suppressed, concealed, and lied to central authorities and the public, with disastrous consequences. Yang labels their behaviour a kind of bureaucratic pathology. We all paid for this. True, central authorities held local Hubei and Wuhan leaders to account, and heads rolled.

The same incentive system, this time prioritising economic development, motivated local officials in Yancheng to press central authorities for benefits and they were brilliantly successful.

What can we in Hong Kong learn from these cases? First, unlike authorities in Wuhan, in the past we have valued learning from previous experience. Yang’s account indirectly highlights the autonomy of Hong Kong, under One Country, Two Systems. Our scientific community had the autonomy to investigate and report publicly its findings on sensitive issues such as novel infectious diseases. Our system also has highly valued transparency and sharing information.

Our system, at least previously, was focused on learning lessons from past mistakes. Thus, after SARS, authorities in the government and the Legislative Council convened panels to investigate what went wrong and how to improve our system of infectious disease management and control. We learned a lot from this and it made us better prepared as a community for the outbreak of Covid-19.

But throughout the Covid-19 pandemic we also made obvious – and perhaps not so obvious – mistakes that must be investigated formally and publicly. The lack of coordination between government departments, the Hospital Authority and the medical profession left our elderly mostly unvaccinated and resulted in the highest death rate in the world from Covid-19.

Conflicting messaging confused many about the benefits and risks of vaccination. How could isolation and quarantine have been better managed? Did we need to close the borders for so long?

Experts would undoubtedly see more, and their investigations could help us better prepare for the next pandemic. These were emergency management decisions, made under pressure. The government now claims to be interested in emergency management. I urge the authorities to reconsider their decision not to investigate how they managed Covid-19. This assumes that Hong Kong has the autonomy to conduct such an investigation. Do we?

Second, we should leverage Hong Kong’s autonomy to lobby Beijing for benefits, Yancheng-style. Our relative autonomy permits us to have a relatively independent legal and judicial system, well-developed financial services, connectivity to the rest of the world, and so forth.

Representation of Hong Kong requires persistent and targeted lobbying to be effective. Such lobbying could win Hong Kong a more central role in the Greater Bay Area, improved logistics and regional airport arrangements, and an enhanced role in the provision of financial services. Ma’s case study also shows the importance of mobilising the community even to protest, something that our leaders today are perhaps loath even to contemplate. This is the hardscrabble reality of politics in China that we need to learn. 

Finally, we need to understand that, from the perspective of the central authorities, prioritising politics and stability is not wrong. This is reflected in the fact that officials have quietly re-employed the party secretaries of Hubei and Wuhan, who were dismissed in February 2020. Priorities often conflict. Which to pursue is a matter of judgement.

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 Dalai Lama, the charismatic Buddhist spiritual leader celebrated worldwide for his tireless campaign for greater autonomy for his Tibetan homeland, has been a thorn in China’s side for decades.

Tenzin Gyatso, who describes himself as a “simple Buddhist monk”, became the face of the Tibetan cause as he crisscrossed the globe, mixing with royalty, politicians and celebrities.

The 88-year-old, with his famous beaming smile, has become a global symbol of peace whose message transcends religion, regarded by his many supporters as a visionary in the vein of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King.

The Dalai Lama was just 23 when he fled the Tibetan capital Lhasa in fear for his life after Chinese troops crushed an uprising that began on March 10, 1959 — 65 years ago this Sunday.

It took him 13 days to trek across the Himalayas to the Indian border. He has never returned.

His life in exile has centred around the northern Indian hill-town of Dharamsala, home to thousands of fellow Tibetans who maintain traditional customs, even though many have never set foot in their ancestral homeland.

In Dharamsala, he set up a government-in-exile and launched a campaign to reclaim Tibet, evolving to embrace a “middle way” — relinquishing independence for greater autonomy.

Unlikely celebrity

In 1989 he won the Nobel Peace Prize for his bid to “seek reconciliation despite brutal violations”.

The award catapulted him into the global spotlight, courted by world leaders and Hollywood stars.

In his maroon robes, simple sandals and wide-rimmed spectacles, the Dalai Lama made an unlikely celebrity.

But his sense of mischief — he once announced he would like to reincarnate as an attractive blonde — and infectious chuckle proved irresistible, and made him a darling of the world’s media.

The Chinese government, however, has remained impervious to his charm, branding him a separatist and a “wolf in a monk’s robe”.

Tibet has alternated over the centuries between independence and control by China, and Beijing says the region is an integral part of the country.

The Dalai Lama wants greater autonomy for his people, including the right to worship freely and to preserve their culture, which many Tibetans say has been crushed under Chinese rule.

Formal negotiations with Beijing broke down in 2010.

A year later, the Dalai Lama retired from politics to make way for a new leader elected by exiled Tibetans around the world.

Life of exile

Born into a farming family in the Tibetan village of Taksar on July 6, 1935, he was chosen as the 14th incarnation of Tibetan Buddhism’s supreme religious leader at the age of two.

He was given the name Jetsun Jamphel Ngawang Lobsang Yeshe Tenzin Gyatso — Holy Lord, Gentle Glory, Compassionate Defender of the Faith and Ocean of Wisdom — and taken to Lhasa’s 1,000-room Potala Palace to be trained to become the leader of his people.

He indulged a precocious scientific curiosity, playing with a watch sent to him by US president Franklin Roosevelt and repairing cars, one of which he crashed into a palace gate.

But his childhood ended abruptly at age 15 when he was hastily enthroned as head of state after the Chinese army invaded Tibet in 1950.

Nine years later, as Chinese troops crushed a popular uprising, he escaped to India.

When told the Dalai Lama had fled, Chinese leader Mao Zedong reportedly said: “In that case, we have lost the battle.”

He was welcomed by India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, who offered Dharamsala as a base for him and thousands of fellow Tibetan refugees.

Throughout the Dalai Lama’s life, he has been treated as an honoured guest in India — an official policy stance that has been a source of tension with Beijing.

It is unclear how, or even whether, his successor will be named, with his predecessors chosen by monks according to ancient Buddhist traditions.

He has alternatively suggested the next Dalai Lama could be a girl, that his spirit could transfer to an adult successor, or that he could even be the last in the line — and that he might be reincarnated as an animal or an insect instead.

But he has always been clear on one point — that any successor named by China would not be credible.

“No recognition or acceptance should be given to a candidate chosen for political ends by anyone, including those in the People’s Republic of China,” he has said.

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 US Army intelligence analyst was arrested on Thursday for allegedly providing national defense information to China.

Sergeant Korbein Schultz, who held a top-secret security clearance, was taken into custody at Fort Campbell, a military base on the Kentucky-Tennessee border, the Justice Department said in a statement.

Schultz’s indictment did not identify the country he was allegedly supplying with sensitive military information, but press reports identified it as China.

According to the indictment, Schultz, since June 2022, provided a contact in Hong Kong with documents, maps and photographs relating to US national defense.

Schultz was allegedly paid a total of $42,000 for the information.

The Justice Department said it included information about potential US plans in the event that Taiwan came under military attack.

It also included documents related to fighter aircraft and helicopters, hypersonic equipment, the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) and studies about the US and Chinese military.

Asked on Friday about Schultz’s arrest, as well as that of a Chinese software engineer held this week for allegedly stealing artificial intelligence technology from Google, Beijing said it was “not aware of the specific circumstances” of the cases.

But spokesperson Mao Ning said in reference to the Google case that “China has consistently attached high importance to and actively protected intellectual property rights”.

“At the same time, we also oppose the United States abusing its national power to groundlessly suppress Chinese enterprises and Chinese citizens,” she told a regular briefing.

Schultz’s indictment also comes shortly after the arrests in California of two US Navy sailors on charges of spying for China.

Petty officer Wenheng Zhao was sentenced to 27 months in prison in January after pleading guilty to charges of conspiring with a foreign intelligence officer and accepting a bribe.

Zhao and another US sailor, Jinchao Wei, were arrested in August.

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

By Xinqi Su and Holmes Chan

As Hong Kong fast-tracks a new national security law, the legislation and questions about its implementation have raised fears among the business community.

The draft bill, introduced at the city’s legislature on Friday, includes major offences such as treason and insurrection, which could be punished with life imprisonment.

The government has said it intends to pass the bill as soon as possible to plug legislative gaps left by an existing national security law imposed on Hong Kong by Beijing in 2020 after the finance hub saw massive pro-democracy protests.

Authorities also say it is their constitutional responsibility to enact homegrown national security legislation according to Hong Kong’s Basic Law — a mini-constitution governing the city since it was handed back to China from Britain in 1997.

But the city is entering “untested, uncharted waters” with the proposed law, said Kristian Odebjer, chairman of the Swedish Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong, speaking to AFP before the draft bill was unveiled.

Its offences include treason, insurrection, espionage and theft of state secrets, sabotaging national security, and external interference.

But the definitions are “vague”, said Odebjer, particularly for the theft of state secrets — which, according to the draft bill, includes defence intelligence but also encompasses information about the city’s economic, social and technological developments.

“This could have a negative impact on… activities that some of our members engage in like research and due diligence activities,” Odebjer told AFP.

These activities “contribute to, or are necessary even, for a functioning financial centre and a market economy like Hong Kong”, he said.

However, city leader John Lee, a Beijing-picked ex-security chief sanctioned by the United States, said the proposed national security law — known as Article 23 — would act as “an effective lock to prevent burglars”.

It will exist alongside the Beijing-imposed national security law, which covers four major crimes: secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with foreign forces.

AFP sought comments from members of the business and diplomatic communities during a one-month public consultation period.

In the draft bill introduced Friday, a “public interest” defence to the state secrets offence was added.

It means a person accused of such a crime could argue their action was in the “public interest” and outweighs the alleged threat to national security — though the bill did not define “public interest”.

‘Red line’

For an economist working for an international bank, the biggest risk “is that increasingly sometimes you don’t really know where the red line is”.

Banks, firms and investors regularly rely on research, economic data and due diligence reports which could fall under the purview of “state secrets”.

The economist, who declined to be named for fear of repercussions, told AFP there could be a situation where a published analysis would affect investors’ sentiment in Hong Kong.

“Will they (the authorities) come back to me?” he questioned. “Is (the report) a threat to so-called economic security?”

The Law Society of Hong Kong, a statutory body all solicitors must join, has recommended the government ensure that “legitimate commercial secrets… will not inadvertently fall within the ambit” of the state secrets offence.

It also provided a fictitious example of research done by a private company into “booster fuels” for vehicles, which later discovered it could be used in rockets and missiles.

“Should (the firm) continue to possess these secrets, knowing that unlawful possession of state secrets is an offence under the proposed ordinance?” the society asked.

‘Worst’ of all worlds

A previous attempt in 2003 to introduce a national security law triggered massive pushback.

Half a million Hong Kongers protested against what they regarded as an erosion of the liberties Beijing promised Hong Kong would have for 50 years post-handover under the “one country, two systems” doctrine.

Today, four years since Beijing’s national security law was enacted, much of the city’s opposition bloc and democracy activists have been arrested, silenced or fled Hong Kong.

Britain has called on the government to reconsider the legislation, while the United States said the new law “risks compounding the 2020 National Security Law that has curtailed the rights and freedoms of people in Hong Kong”.

“Basically they took the worst of mainland China’s criminal law, they took the worst of post-9/11 English-speaking countries’ anti-terrorism laws and they took the worst of colonial law,” a diplomat told AFP, requesting anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter.

He added that the decision for international firms to set up in Hong Kong was because of the “one country, two systems” doctrine, which allows the city to be governed under British common law instead of mainland China’s opaque legal system.

“Now it seems that the border between the ‘two systems’ is becoming… smaller and smaller,” the diplomat said.

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

A Hong Kong women’s rights group has urged the government to enact more support and protection for women, citing income inequality and the pressure they face as carers for family members.

Holding a petition outside the government headquarters in Admiralty on Thursday, the Hong Kong Women Workers’ Association called on Chief Executive John Lee to “listen to the voices of women.” Their appeal came a day before International Women’s Day, an annual date that recognises women’s achievements and raises awareness of gender equality.

“Hong Kong is holding a lot of colourful activities, a lot of mega events, and emphasises that Hong Kong is an international and developed metropolis,” said the group’s executive director Wu Mei-lin, referring to the city’s drive to boost its image.

“But… does Hong Kong have gender inequality?” Wu asked in Cantonese. “Do Hong Kong women get reasonable, fair treatment in the family, as caregivers, in employment?”

The group said while Hong Kong had more women than men, female participation in the workforce lagged behind, at 52.9 per cent compared to 64.7 per cent of men.

Women also earned less than men, the group said. In 2022, the median monthly salary for women was HK$15,300, compared to HK$21,000 for men.

Regarding employment benefits, the group urged the government to mandate 14 weeks of fully paid maternity leave, as well as extend paternity leave. At the moment, employers only need to cover four-fifths of an employee’s salary during their maternity or paternity leave.

The government should also put into place the “equal pay for work of equal value” concept, which advocates women and men who work in similar jobs receiving the same pay.

The rights group also called on the government to enhance support for caregivers, many of whom were women.

Wong Lok-yung, an organiser at the Hong Kong Women Workers’ Association, said authorities had not done enough to assist carers who juggled unpaid responsibilities alongside their jobs.

Currently, the government’s financial support schemes only target carers of senior citizens from low-income families and people with disabilities. Wong said these welfare schemes should be expanded to include more caregivers.

She also suggested that authorities should provide carers with medical vouchers, similar to the healthcare voucher scheme for the elderly which provides subsidies for senior citizens to use at private healthcare facilities.

Last year, the group planned to hold a rally to mark International Women’s Day. But the event, which received the police’s “verbal” approval, was cancelled without explanation at the last minute. Police said the group had decided to cancel the protest “after balancing the interests of all parties.”

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

By Jing Xuan Teng

China will adopt wide-ranging security laws in 2024 to “resolutely safeguard” its sovereignty, a top lawmaker vowed at a key legislative meeting Friday, as President Xi Jinping’s government seeks to eliminate perceived threats to its rule.

The “Two Sessions” — parallel meetings of China’s rubber-stamp parliament and political consultative body — offer a rare glimpse into the strategy of the Communist Party-led government for the year ahead.

Top legislator Zhao Leji on Friday promised that lawmakers would “resolutely safeguard China’s sovereignty, security, and development interests” as he laid out the agenda for the National People’s Congress (NPC) for the coming year.

“To modernise China’s system and capacity for national security,” he said, Beijing will enact “an emergency management law, an energy law, an atomic energy law, and a hazardous chemicals safety law.”

It will also revise “the National Defense Education Law and the Cybersecurity Law,” Zhao said in his report.

He did not offer more details about what the new laws would involve, nor when precisely they would be adopted.

The NPC is also set to introduce and amend laws in areas ranging from financial stability to preschool education and disease control.

“Military education and cybersecurity are clear priorities” for China’s legislators, Jean-Pierre Cabestan, professor and Chinese politics expert at Hong Kong University, told AFP.

“They want to strengthen the legal framework in these areas, which is part of Xi’s own priorities,” he said, adding it was “no surprise” that national security was highlighted in Zhao’s report.

Broad security push

China last year approved a revised anti-espionage law that dramatically expanded its definition of spying, giving Beijing more power than ever to punish what it deems threats to national security.

A state secrets law adopted last month added more categories of sensitive information, including “work secrets” — information not classified as state secrets but which could “impede the normal duties of (state) organs or work units” if leaked.

Such leaks must be met with “necessary protective measures”, the amended law says.

“Putting a heavy focus on national security legislation has been a key feature of the NPC’s legislative work during the Xi era,” Changhao Wei, founder of the NPC Observer website, told AFP.

He pointed to over a dozen pieces of national security legislation rolled out by Beijing since 2014, including counterterrorism, national intelligence, and data security laws.

“There has been a general effort to build the necessary legal infrastructure for safeguarding China’s ‘national security'”, Wei said.

Under Xi, he said, “national security is a priority area for legislation and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future.”

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