The Hong Kong administration is preparing to present a fresh national security bill this Friday, sparking concerns about dwindling civil rights and freedom of speech in the territory once under British rule. The law will bring about new restrictions against treason, mutiny, secession, and subversion opposing the Chinese government.
The impending legislation is supplemental to the National Security Law enforced on Hong Kong by Beijing in 2020 in the aftermath of violent pro-democracy protests. Hong Kong’s administration contends that under Article 23 of the Basic Law – their constitution established at the conclusion of British colonisation – they are required to implement such regulations.
The territory’s Chief Executive, John Lee, handpicked by Beijing, has forwarded the bill to the Legislative Council, directing for its swift enactment. The Secretary of Justice, Paul Lam, assures that journalists have nothing to dread from the impending legislation, and the freedom of information and speech will persist under the Basic Law. He underscored that the administration has no plans to prohibit social media.
“Social media is merely a platform. We aren’t aiming to eliminate its existence,” Lam clarified. “We aim to identify individuals who exploit this platform to disseminate messages detrimental to national security.”
Since 2020, there have been reports of journalists and publishers, including those like Apple Daily’s Jimmy Lai, who have been arrested and jailed under the National Security Law and a colonial-era sedition law. Lai has been incarcerated for over three years and is currently on trial under the National Security Law.
On Thursday, three high court justices dismissed an appeal lodged by radio DJ and pro-democracy advocate Tam Tak-chi contesting his conviction and sentencing for crimes including seven sedition offences. Tam, known as “Fast Beat”, was a political activist, a Christian preacher and a presenter at an online radio station. His charges include uttering seditious phrases such as “Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution of Our Times”, a chant commonly used during pro-democracy protests.
In contrast with mainland China, Hong Kong operates under a common law system, influenced by precedents present in other common law places. Lawyers for Mr Tam brought up a previous decision made by London’s Privy Council in the prior year, stating that the sedition law in Trinidad and Tobago couldn’t be utilised for prosecutions without concrete proof that the accused were instigating violence.
However, the high court determined that the London council’s ruling didn’t apply to Hong Kong, as sedition in this jurisdiction is viewed as a statutory offence, unlike Trinidad and Tobago where it’s a common law offence. The judges maintained that expressions that were not considered inflammatory previously might be interpreted differently now, given the current state of affairs in Hong Kong.
The judges emphasised that words are never spoken in isolation and should always be perceived within their societal, cultural and political context. With changes in societal conditions, expressions that, in the past, were harmless may be perceived as objectionable today.
The recent court decision could impact future sedition trials in Hong Kong, including a high-profile case against two former editors from Stand News, which is deemed a crucial litmus test for press independence.
Make sure to keep updated by subscribing to push alerts for the freshest reports, analyses, and commentaries delivered directly to your mobile. Join us on WhatsApp to stay informed, and listen to our Inside Politics Podcast for the most recent in-depth analysis and conversations. Don’t forget to check The Irish Times regularly as well.