Big Lychee, Various Sectors

The SCMP reports…

Hong Kong election authorities have stopped compiling voter turnout data by age and sex, citing a lack of operational need, in a move that has raised concerns about undermining the transparency of polls.

Analysts and politicians said such statistics were valuable for election hopefuls in understanding voter demographics and formulating policy suggestions, while authorities could use the data to improve governance.

There probably isn’t an ‘operational need’. But is that a reason to stop compiling the stats?

The turnout in last December’s election reached 31.9 per cent, with nearly 1.32 million residents casting votes. It surpassed the 30.2 per cent recorded in the 2021 poll, but remained significantly below the 58.28 per cent turnout in 2016.

Participation among young voters, in particular, has slumped since Beijing revamped the electoral system in 2021 to ensure only “patriots” could hold power.

In the Legco election held later that year, turnout among voters aged 30 and below hit a record low of 7.01 per cent, compared with 45.81 per cent for those over 60.

In the 2023 district council election, turnout stood at 7.49 per cent for those aged 30 and below and 41.22 per cent for those over 60.

By contrast, the turnout rate across all age groups exceeded 50 per cent in the 2016 Legco election and reached about 70 per cent in the 2019 district council poll, which was held amid anti-government protests sparked by an unpopular extradition bill.

Voter turnout collapsed after the authorities barred all but ‘patriotic’ candidates from the ballot. Once-popular and outspoken politicians have ended up in prison, while most candidates running in the new-style polls are unknown and apparently devoid of any serious views. Furthermore, most seats in the legislature are now filled by small groups of government-picked electors – often organizations rather than humans. It’s hardly surprising if the public sees less point in voting.

The SCMP apparently struggles to find anyone who supports the new move…

Lawmaker Mark Chong Ho-fung called on the government to resume releasing the data to enhance transparency, saying that the change could damage public perception.

He said that the figures were valuable for politicians, especially those representing geographical constituencies, to better analyse voter demographics and formulate policy suggestions.

…Emeritus Professor John Burns of the University of Hong Kong described the decision as regrettable, saying the release of comprehensive data was essential for electoral openness and transparency.

“We no longer have a government that pledges to be as accountable to the public as possible, as open and as transparent as possible,” he said.

The expert in public administration explained that such statistics helped to reveal voting behaviour, allowing the government to identify support across age groups.

“They need this information in order to better understand where their support lies, who their supporters are and who they need to win over, who they need to convince,” Burns said.

Even Lau Siu-kai, a pro-Beijing think-tank commentator, disagrees with the change…

“Understanding the turnout rate by age group does not simply help boost voter turnout,” he said, noting that the government could try to change the attitudes of age groups that were more reluctant to cast ballots.

“It allows an in-depth study into the factors influencing voter behaviour, including whether people are satisfied or dissatisfied with the government and social conditions.”

And perhaps this is the reason why the data won’t be available any more. If less than 7.5% of under-30s vote, there’s a pretty serious problem. If there’s no such statistic, the problem goes away!

The fundamental question is: why have a legislature at all, when it no longer represents the people or has a role in holding the executive branch to account? 

An op-ed by activist and lawyer Patrick Poon in the Japan Times joins the international alarm over the new ‘instant Nat-Sec offense’ mechanism. And it goes further…

…Chief Executive John Lee, has dealt a lethal blow to the rule of law in Hong Kong…

The chief executive can now certify anything as “endangering national security” and thus restrict freedom of expression with the new unlimited power given to him. Judges will have no say as the secretary for justice has already made it clear.

…On June 8, Lee announced that he will decide and certify whether any matters would involve national security and the decisions cannot be challenged. Nobody knows about the criteria, except for Lee himself. In April, it was announced that travelers who refused to share passwords or deny access to personal electronic devices could be subject to criminal charges in Hong Kong.  

…Judges are reduced to executing legal interpretations set out by the executive, and no judicial interpretation will be allowed 

…Not to mention that there is absolutely no more separation of powers. The executive dominates government operations. The legislature only performs the role of a rubber stamp, legitimizing whatever decisions are made by the chief executive.  

…China is not only exporting substandard products but also its draconian governance culture. The death of Hong Kong’s rule of law and civil society is not only about Hong Kong and China; it’s affecting the political landscape in Taiwan, East Asia and even globally as the foundations of sovereignty and democratic self-governance come under increasing pressure. 

Will the writer of irate HK government press statements even know where to start?

The Court of Final Appeal upholds the law making it illegal to urge people to do something that is legal – namely boycott an election in Hong Kong. HKFP reports…

Although casting a blank ballot or not voting is legal, encouraging others to do either remains unlawful.

…[Chief Justice Andrew] Cheung said that calls to boycott an election by ways of casting a blank vote or not voting at all could undermine the “legitimacy, credibility, or representative mandate of the electoral process.” 

The law does not bar individuals from casting a blank vote or choosing not to vote, he noted, as it only bans the act of publicly inciting others to do so: “It is one thing for individual voters to choose not to vote, or to cast an invalid vote. It is quite another for voters to be publicly incited to do so on a mass scale,” Cheung wrote. 

“It can hardly be disputed that such incitement, if successfully carried out, is liable to undermine the effective conduct of elections,” he added.

Surely it can easily be disputed. Is calling for an election boycott a crime in any democratic society? Does it undermine elections in those places? And why do far fewer people vote these days: calls for a boycatt, or a tightly restricted range of permitted candidates?

He said the law has imposed a “modest” and “carefully circumscribed” restriction to freedom of expression, targeting public incitement rather than private discussion or individual decision-making.

Cheung also dismissed the argument that the law favours voting participation and discriminates against the advocacy of casting an invalid vote or not voting, which are lawful electoral choices. He said boycott calls could undermine the election and therefore a differential treatment is justified.

They’ve lost me. Surely, urging people to vote or not to vote both potentially affect or ‘undermine’ an election in equal measure. Just as both are urging or ‘inciting’ people in equal measure. (Note the key role played by the loaded term ‘incite’, which we never used to hear before 2020. It’s as if you are free to suggest, propose, urge, advise or bitch about; but if the authorities switch to the word ‘incite’, you’re suddenly committing a crime.)

Samuel Bickett adds…

The reasoning is, of course, thin. The court called the restriction “necessary” because calls to cast blank ballots risk “undermining the legitimacy” of Hong Kong’s elections, a legitimacy the government has done the most to erode by barring opposition candidates from running. It drew a line between abstaining and backing a candidate, holding that only abstention threatens the system, while declining to mention that openly supporting pro-democracy candidates can itself land you in prison.

That’s an interesting question. What if – in the run-up to a modern-day Hong Kong election – you call on people to vote for (say) Long Hair or other pan-dems who are now barred from the ballot? Does that count as urging/inciting people to boycott? 

RTHK reports…

Secretary for Environment and Ecology Tse Chin-wan said all restaurant licences would have national security clauses by September.

The Food and Environmental Hygiene Department introduced the clauses in licence renewals for restaurants in May last year, prohibiting business activities that endanger national security.

…The clauses, he added, act as a constant reminder to restaurant managers and staff to protect national security.

Tse said no violations to the national security clauses have been found so far. 

Why should there be? How can a restaurant threaten the security of the nation? Can you leak blueprints for nuclear submarines in a dumpling? Can a steak be subversive? Can congee collude with foreign powers?

Better safe than sorry. From HKFP…

The Hong Kong government has appointed a former top police officer to head the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department. 

The government said in a Monday statement that Albert Yuen, who served as Deputy Commissioner of Police (Operations) from 2021 to 2023, was “identified as the most suitable candidate.” His appointment took effect on Tuesday. 

…Yuen is the latest in a line of former police officers to take up office in government departments. In May, John Tse, who served as chief superintendent of the police force’s public relations branch, took up office as head of the Information Services Department (ISD). 

Doesn’t look like much of a step up – from deputy police commissioner to head of FEHD, though the nearly-HK$300,000 a month salary isn’t bad. Maybe ‘yellow’ outlets are due for even tougher inspections. Perhaps someone somewhere wants a steady supply of former cops in the pipeline for when the current ones in top positions move up or out. 

Or… maybe restaurants really are a NatSec threat. Poke a soufflé with a spoon and just feel the soft resistance.

Hong Kong’s Five-Year Plan. Mostly about Northern Metropolis, the economy and tourism, with one section on education, housing and social issues. Long story short: everything will be enhanced. Buzzword count here.

Sample passage…

The HKSAR Government will, in line with the directions set out in the National 15th Five-Year Plan, fully leverage Hong Kong’s unique advantages under “One Country, Two Systems” of enjoying strong support from the motherland and being closely connected with the world, so as to consolidate and enhance Hong Kong’s status as an international financial centre, international trade centre, international maritime centre, and an international aviation hub, and to accelerate the development of high value-added maritime, aviation and related professional services. Hong Kong will also further strengthen its functions as a global offshore Renminbi business hub, an international asset management centre, and an international risk management centre, while promoting the development of new industries with competitive edge, such as commodities trading, high value-added supply chain services, etc. 

It’s hard to see anything that isn’t already covered in existing policy addresses, budgets and other announced plans. Nor are there many (any?) details of how the various ideas will be implemented or their success measured. The Standard’s story explains that it is indeed intended as a ‘strategic guide’ rather than a list of targets.

RTHK reports…

Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Janice Tse said the aim is to better align with the nation’s 15th Five-Year Plan.

“Through this, we will better align ourselves with and serve national development, as well as seize the new opportunities,” she said.

“The Hong Kong five-year plan is strategic, forward-looking and operable. It lays out our goals for the next five years.”

…She added that the city’s five-year plan, the policy address and the budget will complement one another.

“The SAR government will organically integrate Hong Kong’s five-year plan with the annual policy address and budget.

…Tse said the blueprint and its alignment with the country’s Five-Year Plan would not replace Hong Kong’s free market economy. Instead, it establishes a clear strategic plan and vision for the market to develop in a more stable and transparent manner.

Writing on social media, Chef Executive John Lee described the drafting of the plan as “historic” and carries “great significance”.

Each section ends with an invitation for the public to submit their views – presumably in case you have better ideas on how Hong Kong can align with China’s 15th Five-Year Plan. Namely (as you know): a target of 4.5-5.0% annual GDP growth through 2030; self-reliance in essential supply chains; and a focus on ‘new quality productive forces’. The Hong Kong document doesn’t seem to have that much on these subjects, but PRC Five-Year Plans today are themselves broad/vague wishlists rather than old-style central planners’ targets for wheat and tractor production. 

It’s all pretty harmless.

Meanwhile, the real alignment continues. 

The Washington Post editorial board writes: ‘At China’s behest, the city says people can now be charged retroactively for crimes that didn’t exist when they allegedly committed them’… 

Hong Kong’s national security law has already crushed the territory’s once-vibrant civic and political life. But now the city’s hard-line authorities are making the law even more repressive for anyone caught in its net.

Under updates which took effect this week, the city’s chief executive can classify any case as a national security crime under the 2020 law, even when the alleged offense was committed before that law took effect.

For good reasons, people cannot generally be told they violated a law that didn’t exist when they broke it. Yet Hong Kong’s leaders, beholden to China, don’t care.

The chief executive — picked by Beijing, with no popular mandate — now gets to classify any criminal act as a national security offense. The authorities classified this as housekeeping. Or as Chief Executive John Lee put it, the changes were designed “purely to make the law even clearer.”

But the authorities used a procedure to impose these changes without public comment and the usual legislative review.

Being charged with a national security offense carries enormous consequences for defendants. They can be jailed immediately and held for longer pre-trial detention periods. They are denied the ordinary presumption of innocence and denied bail. And they can be denied their choice of lawyer, as happened to newspaper publisher Jimmy Lai.

Their case is also heard before a judge chosen by — guess who? — the chief executive himself.

The HK government issues a predictably robust response…

The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) today (June 13) strongly condemns the wanton slander and groundless allegations made by The Washington Post in its article entitled “Hong Kong’s nightmare gets darker”, criticising the Safeguarding National Security (Procedural Matters) Regulation (Procedural Matters Regulation). The article clearly exposes The Washington Post’s irrational anti-China stance and double standards, falling well short of what is expected of professional journalism.

…The Washington Post, shamelessly display[s] its hypocrisy and double standards by pointing fingers at the HKSAR as we continuously improve our legal system to fulfill a constitutional duty to safeguard national security.”

…”Any reasonable and objective person who has studied the three provisions of the Procedural Matters Regulation with care, and observed the relevant discussions at the Legislative Council (LegCo) meetings would have no difficulty in finding that the Procedural Matters Regulation has no retrospective effect at all. It does not create any new offence or alter the penalties of any offence. It certainly does not turn any lawful conduct into an offence. It is not applicable to legal proceedings that are concluded. Yet, The Washington Post falsely and maliciously claimed that ‘people can now be charged retroactively for crimes that didn’t exist when they allegedly committed them’. Its ignorance of facts and betrayal of the basic tenets of responsible journalism are shocking, irresponsible, and totally unacceptable behaviour for any media organisation.

…Regarding The Washington Post’s baseless claim that Hong Kong is now “a less secure place to visit or do business”, the spokesperson said, “It is most appalling that The Washington Post has to resort to dirty tricks and tell bold-faced lies to smear the HKSAR. 

Ever since the NPC ‘interpretation’ procedure started to be used to give Basic Law clauses meanings that were never in the original wording, I have ceased as a layman to see much point in reading the fine print in legislation. So I honestly have no idea whether this (Procedural Matters) Regulation (Procedural Matters Regulation) is retroactive or not. The government seems pretty adamant that it isn’t – though, given the uniformly outraged tone of the press statement, it’s hard to calibrate how adamant anything is.

That was quick. The Standard reports…

The Hong Kong Legislative Council swiftly completed a clause-by-clause review of newly amended national security subsidiary legislation on Thursday afternoon. The fast-tracked process, driven by cited geopolitical risks, centers on a mechanism allowing the Chief Executive to certify criminal cases as national security offenses.

…Secretary for Justice Paul Lam Ting-kwok explained that the Chief Executive certificate mechanism aligns with established common law principles, noting that courts traditionally respect the executive branch’s specialized experience and assessment of security risks.

Lam also clarified that the regulation carries no retrospective effect and will not apply to already completed legal proceedings.

Tang refuted public claims that the mechanism would arbitrarily expand the scope of national security crimes to cover minor, ordinary offenses.

He described such allegations as misleading attempts to incite public distrust, emphasizing that the classification will only apply to cases with a genuine national security background, a scenario he expects to be extremely rare.

From HKFP…

Two Hong Kong officials have condemned “groundless accusations” against a recent update to the city’s homegrown national security law, which empowers the chief executive to certify any criminal case as a national security offence. 

Secretary for Security Chris Tang told the Legislative Council (LegCo) on Thursday afternoon that he noticed some people had misunderstood or “deliberately misinterpreted” the subsidiary legislation. 

They tried to intimidate the public by claiming that the subsidiary law would widen the scope of national security offences, turning minor offences into national security crimes, he said.

The security chief called the accusations “false, misleading, deceptive, and scaremongering” and said some people were attempting to incite hatred towards the government.

“Some people delivered alarmist remarks, saying that the government can randomly certify any acts of the public as national security offences. Those people may have ulterior motives or are cruel-hearted, hoping to incite others’ hatred of the HKSAR,” Tang said in Cantonese.

Also speaking at LegCo, Secretary for Justice Paul Lam said he noticed “some media outlets with ulterior motives, foreign forces, and fugitives” had made “groundless accusations” against the national security law.

The phrases ‘incitement of hatred towards the government’ and ‘foreign forces’ hint at NatSec offences sedition and collusion respectively. ‘Cruel-hearted’ is a new one. Makes me want to grab a tissue and burst into tears.

RTHK says…

[Chris Tang] … said some “bad actors” have been spreading misinformation about the subsidiary legislation in an attempt to scare the public and incite hatred towards the government.

This showed that threats to national security still exist, Tang said. 

This looks like an endless loop: ‘spreading misinformation’ about NatSec legislation is proof of a need for NatSec legislation?

Paul Lam says only the executive has the intel to decide whether a normal offence should be recategorized a NatSec one…

At a Legco subcommittee meeting on Thursday to discuss the matter, the justice minister said many common law jurisdictions, such as the UK and US, defer to executive authorities to decide whether a criminal act infringes on national security matters.

“For you to make an appropriate judgement in defence of national security, you need to consider a host of information, including confidential, sensitive information,” Lam said.

“So the question is, is it what lawyers, judges are trained to do? The answer is definitely not. The most reasonable [course of action] is for the executive authorities to shoulder the responsibility to carry out the intelligence, analyse intelligence and so forth.”

He also said that giving the CE the authority in national security cases won’t undermine judicial independence.

“The chief executive’s role is only to decide whether a case is related or involves national security. The certificate cannot [possibly] be made or seen as having an effect on sentencing or the final judgement of the court.” 

This last point seems to be a core line-to-take. But maybe not everyone would agree that transfer from a regular court – with, say, a jury – to one with only a government-picked judge and a 99% conviction rate ‘cannot possibly have an effect on the final judgement’. How to convince them otherwise? Cue Ronny…

Executive councillor and senior counsel Ronny Tong said subsidiary legislation clarifying the classification mechanism for “other offences endangering national security under the law of the HKSAR” will not affect the substantive rights of defendants.

…”And since this is simply a change or improvement of procedure, it doesn’t affect the substantive rights of the defendant.

“It does not affect the nature of the offence, it does not affect the punishment to be dished out in the case of a conviction, and it doesn’t deal with or change the governing principles regarding those offences.”

And maybe there’s more to come…

Tong also said moving forward, there might be a need to consider amending the law to include new conducts that pose a threat to national security.

“Conviction of an offence and a threat to national security are two different things. And sometimes – although it may be very rare – a threat to national security may not constitute a criminal act. It all depends on how the criminal act is framed by the legislature.

“It might mean that in the future, we might find that there are conducts which constitute a threat to national security but it’s not yet a national security offence, then we may need to consider amending our national security law to include that conduct.”

Or maybe you could just allow the CE to issue a certificate deeming – on a very rare, case-by-case basis – any legal thought, word or deed a NatSec offence. 

Hong Kong is set to receive 53.8 million tourists this year.

HKFP reports…

Hong Kong authorities are exploring the introduction of a real-name reservation system for a popular hiking trail in Sai Kung to curb overtourism. 

Speaking at a Legislative Council (LegCo) panel meeting on Monday, Dianne Wong, under secretary for environment and ecology, said the registration system could prevent excessive arrivals at the Po Pin Chau section at Sai Kung’s East Dam during holidays, allowing better visitor flow management and preventing overcrowding. 

…Monday’s proposal comes after excessive tourism caused environmental damage to Sharp Island during China’s National Day Golden Week in October, with some tourists seen trampling on corals and digging up marine life. 

Maybe the next step will be to offer the overtourists an AI Immersive-cum-Geopark Experience, whereby they sit in a hall in Fanling with huge goggles strapped to their heads that give them a 3D 360-degree virtual reality day out. They can even fall off a cliff taking selfies and come to no harm. Then the authorities can offer the exciting package at a location in Shenzhen, to save the ‘visitors’ the trouble of actually coming here.

RTHK tells us…

Chief Secretary Eric Chan said on Wednesday the government would transform Hong Kong into a world-class tourist destination, amid solid growth for inbound tourism this year. 

…”We’ll fully utilise all policies that are beneficial to Hong Kong from the central government to transform the city into a world-class tourist destination preferred by global travellers,” he told event participants. 

“We’ll also leverage Hong Kong’s unique advantages of linking the mainland with the world to become an important window for cultural exchanges between the East and the West.” 

I take the phrase ‘utilise all policies’ to mean ‘virtual reality headsets in Shenzhen’.

The SCMP says that the new procedure for turning non-NatSec criminal charges into NatSec ones could be retroactive…

Hong Kong’s new legislation enables certain criminal cases to be retroactively brought under national security procedures even if the alleged offences occurred before the 2020 national security law was enacted.

The subsidiary legislation, which introduces a classification mechanism for “other offences endangering national security” under the city’s domestic national security law, was gazetted and came into effect on Tuesday.

Under the new law, any case certified by the chief executive will be classified as a national security offence, even if the act or the prosecution occurred before the national security law came into force in 2020.

What if you’ve already been tried and found not guilty? Or found guilty and already served your sentence? Do they re-arrest you and send you to a NatSec court for a second trial for your newly NatSec-ized offence?

A Tweet translates a Pulse HK article…

A current affairs commentator has questioned that the new subsidiary legislation effectively grants the administrative authorities powers akin to the mainland’s “criminal detention” system; scholars have also criticized the administration for stripping the courts of their judicial interpretation rights, while the legislature turns a blind eye, calling it “Hong Kong’s tragedy.”

Current affairs commentator Lam Siu-pan [describes] the “certificate” empowered by the new subsidiary legislation—which allows the Chief Executive to deem other offenses as “endangering national security crimes”—as akin to a “magic wand,” enabling the administrative authorities to easily bypass judicial thresholds. With a wave of the Chief Executive’s “magic wand,” investigations and trials in relevant cases can align with “national security standards,” allowing for no jury, decisions by “designated judges” alone, and he is particularly concerned about the detention period for arrestees.

Lam Siu-pan gave an example: If a citizen “jaywalks” near Victoria Park on a “sensitive day,” and police suspect the motive for the illegal crossing is to participate in some form of “illegal assembly” that “endangers national security,” as long as the Chief Executive issues a “certificate,” it triggers a mechanism to detain that jaywalking citizen under national security provisions for up to 16 days before formal charges. 

Someone Tweeted yesterday that it will be interesting to see who this procedure is first used against. It was introduced and enacted quite suddenly; do the authorities have someone in mind?

Via HKFP, more explanation from the CE of the make-things-NatSec plan…

A Hong Kong government proposal that will allow the city’s leader to certify criminal acts as national security offences is intended to “make the law clear,” Chief Executive John Lee has said. 

Speaking at a press conference on Tuesday, Lee said the new subsidiary legislation for Hong Kong’s homegrown national security law, the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, commonly known as Article 23, “is purely to make the law even clearer.” 

From RTHK…

Chief Executive John Lee said on Tuesday that a proposed piece of subsidiary legislation to clearly define the classification mechanism for “other offences endangering national security under the law of the HKSAR” will make the relevant laws clearer for the administration of justice.

Under the proposal … if the chief executive issues a certificate under the law confirming that a criminal act involves national security, the case shall be treated as one.

And where a person is charged with – or convicted of – an alternative offence arising from the same act in a case involving a national security offence, that alternative offence shall also be classified as an offence endangering national security.

Speaking ahead of the weekly Executive Council meeting, Lee said the move “will have the benefit of reducing the risk of controversies or debates in court about what constitutes an offence endangering national security”. 

Hope that clears it all up for you.

Mark Simon on why Beijing should release Jimmy Lai…

…In Hong Kong, it’s mission accomplished. There is no sign of any political dissent on the campus or on the streets, certainly none in the boardroom or newsroom. Would releasing political prisoners change that situation? Hundreds have been released and no trouble yet. Would it be any different if others were released, or more importantly released to leave Hong Kong? This is the premise for the cost benefit analysis of imprisoning Jimmy Lai.

So what exactly is the cost? It begins with reputation and compounds from there. Hong Kong’s extraordinary run as Asia’s premier financial hub was built not merely on geography or low taxes, but on a credible rule of law — the idea that contracts would be honored, courts would be independent, and journalists could report freely. Jimmy Lai’s trial, stretching on for years under a national security law that most Western legal scholars regard as fundamentally incompatible with common law traditions, has become a living advertisement that those guarantees are gone. Every time Lai’s case appears in the financial press, every time a Western government issues a statement calling for his release, Hong Kong’s brand takes another quiet but measurable hit.

The Hong Kong government plans to allow the chief executive…

…to certify any criminal act as a national security case, in a legal update that would be binding on the courts. 

…The chief executive is already empowered to issue certificates to decide whether an act involves national security, but the new subsidiary legislation aims to “bring greater certainty” to the courts. There will no longer be room to debate whether an ordinary crime could face national security procedures when a certificate is issued. 

RTHK reports the official wording…

The Security Bureau and the Department of Justice have announced plans to introduce subsidiary legislation to clearly define the classification mechanism for “other offences endangering national security under the law of the HKSAR,” as stipulated under the Hong Kong National Security Law (HKNSL) and the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance (SNSO).

…The move, they said, aims to strengthen legal clarity, enhance procedural efficiency, and enable timely prevention and response to national security risks.

…The proposed subsidiary legislation … will set out two key principles.

If the Chief Executive issues a certificate … confirming that a criminal act involves national security, the case shall be treated as one concerning an offence endangering national security…

…And, where a person is charged with — or convicted of — an alternative offence arising from the same act in a case involving a national security offence, that alternative offence shall also be classified as an offence endangering national security. 

Question: does this mean the government can put someone facing any criminal charge into the NatSec court system – where there’s no bail (probably), no jury, a hand-picked judge, and a 99% conviction rate? 

Via RTHK, a government clarification…

The government said on Monday that proposed subsidiary legislation to clearly define the classification mechanism for “other offences endangering national security under the law of the HKSAR” does not involve the introduction of any new offences.

But…

Under the proposal to be enacted under Section 110 of the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance (SNSO), if the chief executive issues a certificate under the law confirming that a criminal act involves national security, the case shall be treated as one.

Sounds like a ‘yes’. It doesn’t create new NatSec offences – it just makes all offences potentially NatSec ones.

And where a person is charged with – or convicted of – an alternative offence arising from the same act in a case involving a national security offence, that alternative offence shall also be classified as an offence endangering national security.

At a Legislative Council panel meeting, Secretary for Justice Paul Lam said there are no changes to the implementation details or scope of application of the SNSO and the Hong Kong National Security Law.

…“As for whether a defendant is guilty or not, that remains solely for the court to rule independently in accordance with the law, and the court will ensure that the defendant receives a fair trial.” 

With no jury, a hand-picked judge, etc.

AP adds…

Simon Young, a law professor at the University of Hong Kong … said there is the danger of the chief executive relying upon secret information to judge the case as involving national security, leaving the defendant no room to contest the decision.

“This is not new and something I had warned about from the beginning, the danger to the rule of law and fair trial from an unreviewable executive power to determine critical facts binding on the court,” he said.

Eric Lai, a fellow at Georgetown Center for Asian Law, said the will of the leader may “arbitrarily” turn criminal cases into national security matters under the proposed change, and such exercise of power comes without institutional safeguards to prevent abuse of it. That approach could further erode the city’s rule of law, he said. 

He added that the chief executive could also step into other criminal cases, such as commercial fraud and money laundering, under the pretext of safeguarding national security. These offenses are often being weaponized to suppress dissidents in authoritarian states, he said. 

As an example (Standard story page 3, June 9), the Security Secretary tells LegCo that someone helping a NatSec offender escape from prison might have his offence upgraded to NatSec status.