Public consultation, 1st and 2nd readings over already

Full text of the ‘Safeguarding National Security’ Bill. A full round-up from HKFP. 

Among other things: life sentences for treason, insurrection and sabotage; a maximum 10-year sentence for sedition; possible extended detention without charge for NatSec suspects; powers to limit NatSec suspects’ right to a lawyer; possible secret trials; vague definitions of such things as ‘state secrets’; and possible bans on organizations involved in ‘foreign interference’.

The authorities are pushing the claim that all this is equivalent to free countries’ national-security laws. But – for example – in such jurisdictions sedition cannot apply to mere words (if the offense exists at all), extended detention and secret trials are reserved for rare cases of terrorism or espionage, and governments don’t accuse overseas critics of ‘interference’ in frequent press statements.

A Diplomat article says…

It’s widely seen as the latest step in a crackdown on political opposition that began after the semi-autonomous Chinese city was rocked by violent pro-democracy protests in 2019. Since then, the authorities have crushed the city’s once-vibrant political culture. 

…Hong Kong leader John Lee has urged legislators to push the Safeguarding National Security Bill through “at full speed,” and lawmakers began debate hours after the bill was released publicly. It’s expected to pass easily, possibly in weeks, in a legislature packed with Beijing loyalists following an electoral overhaul.

…The bill allows prosecutions for acts committed anywhere in the world for most of its offenses.

…It defined national security as a status in which the state’s political regime and sovereignty are relatively free from danger and threats, so are the welfare of the people and the state’s economic and social development among other “major interests.”

The bottom line is that Article 23 brings Hong Kong closer to Mainland levels of control. If you want to say ‘1 Country, Two Systems’ is still intact, you could point out that the city still lacks a ‘picking arguments and trouble’ catch-all charge, overt Internet censorship and broad measures against fake news. But there is more uncertainty.

Kevin Yam says…

[Restricted right to legal representation] is a clear breach of the right to legal representation of one’s choice under Article 35 of #HongKong Basic Law.

But would an HK court strike this down if anyone still dares to challenge it? Don’t count on it.

From HKFP…

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?”

University World News on the impact on academia…

Several Hong Kong-based academics approached by University World News said the draft law was “too sensitive” to criticise publicly.

Privately, they said it will have a dramatic effect on universities’ open culture. They said the crimes are defined so broadly in the government’s consultation document released last month that it is unclear where the legal boundaries lie.

Reg asks: would late Wuhan Covid whistleblower Li Wenliang have been guilty of disclosure of state secrets under Article 23? Apparently, he should have taken ‘reasonable steps’ first. (For a reminder of how secrecy caused the Covid outbreak, check out this recent HKFP op-ed.)

One additional item of weirdness – some old newspapers might now be illegal…

Lawmaker Peter Koon Ho-ming said residents saving old copies of Apple Daily were worried and wondered if they had to dispose of them.

…“Apple Daily is absolutely seditious and some people feel like saving a copy or two at home to keep a record of such a lousy newspaper,” Koon told the Legco meeting.

“Does that make it possession of a seditious publication?”

…Secretary for Security Chris Tang Ping-keung said a collector of old Apple Daily copies [he didn’t mention the paper by name] might need to invoke the reasonable excuse clause in the law as a defence.

“[If] one has kept that publication for a long time without knowing it is still there, and there is no purpose of using it for incitement, I believe this can be a reasonable excuse,” he said.

So if you know you have a few old Apple Dailys in your souvenir box, you’re committing a crime? (What about archives held by media groups or academics?) Especially worrying since the Article 23 bill also removes suspended sentences for sedition. The SCMP adds…

Professor Simon Young Ngai-man, a legal expert at the University of Hong Kong, said it was troubling that those convicted of sedition, such as for possessing seditious publication, would be deprived of suspended sentences.

“One can imagine some very trivial cases that could warrant a suspended sentence. The options now will be probation or community service order at one extreme and jail at the other,” Young said.

(RTHK report.)

Mike Rowse says all will be OK if only Hong Kong could organize a massive super mega-event…

We will need a genuine mega event soon. Once Article 23 security legislation is enacted, the foreign media will be full of stories about Hong Kong not being safe for foreigners to visit. The best way to counter this narrative will not be with “wolf-warrior diplomacy” but something so spectacular that everyone in the world will want to come and see it for themselves. We must put our thinking caps on and be prepared to spend big.

Updates on the Jimmy Lai trial.