Hong Kong’s Legislative Council is set to fast track the approval of a national security bill tabled today that imposes unprecedented restrictions to all forms of freedom in the former British colony, including life in prison for “treason” and up to ten years for “sedition”. The law also goes after people who do not report government opponents, a provision that will serve as an additional tool of pressure on religious communities.

Hong Kong (AsiaNews) – Hong Kong’s Legislative Council (LegCo) met today to begin the approval process for its own security legislation implementing Article 23 of its Basic Law, which has governed the former British colony since 1997 when it returned to China.

The assembly, which is controlled by pro-Beijing groups following the liquidation of any semblance of democracy in the Special Administrative Region, is set to work “day and night” to fast track the approval of the 212-page-long  Safeguarding National Security bill, following indications from Chief Executive John Lee.

The bill was introduced in a hurry, just nine days after the one-month "public consultation" process, which, as expected, did not take into account concerns expressed by human rights groups.

Since July 2020, Hong Kong has been subject to strict national security legislation imposed by China, following mass protests that saw hundreds of thousands of people take to the streets vainly demanding democracy, under the "one country, two systems" principle that was the basis for the territory’s return to Chinese sovereignty.

Beijing’s national security legislation has meant that hundreds of pro-democracy activists now find themselves on trial or in prison following surreal charges of "subversion" or "foreign influence”.

With Article 23 legislation in its proposed form, the repression of freedom of expression in Hong Kong is set to get worse.

Officially, it is a Hong Kong-made bill, not something from mainland China, meant to implement a principle of the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s constitution adopted after its retrocession to China, namely Article 23, which requires a law against risks to national security.

Back in 2003, the Hong Kong government tried to pass similar legislation, but it failed following a grassroots protest movement that saw the bill as a clear attempt to deny freedoms guaranteed under the rule of law that the British colonial administration, despite certain limits, had upheld.

Now, however, expressing dissent is no longer possible, the People's Republic of China and John Lee are preparing to finish the work, going for legislation that is even stricter and more arbitrary than that what is currently in force.

If Hong Kong's national security law is adopted in its proposed form (and there is no reason to doubt that), it will be possible to be sentenced to life in prison for crimes like “treason", "insurrection", and threats to China's “sovereignty".

For the crime of "sedition", often used in court against pro-democracy protesters, the maximum penalty goes from two years in prison to seven years, with the possibility of ten in case of collusion with an “external force”.

In view of this, the new law defines "seditious intention" as inciting people to bring people into hatred, contempt or disaffection against China, its offices in Hong Kong, the government and the region’s legal system.

The bill also raises the period of detention for people under police investigation for breaches of the national security offence from 48 hours to two weeks. It also gives law enforcement new powers to limit detainees' access to legal counsel.

The government will be able to revoke the passports of those under an arrest warrant issued for a national security offence, as well as prevent them from engaging in any financial transactions if they do not appear before the magistrate within six months, a measure that clearly targets all members of the pro-democracy movement who have fled abroad.

As proof of its intimidatory intent, the proposed national security law also criminalises failure to report someone else’s treason, targeting people who might be aware of conduct that undermines state security (as defined by Hong Kong authorities).

In this case, people can be reported and convicted, with possibly up to 14 years in prison. It is easy to see how such an offence threatens everyone.

This poses a specific threat to religious groups. In one of the opinions submitted at the consultation stage, the issue was raised, citing the case of ministers of religion who receive confidential information related to their role (like Catholic priests bound by the Seal of Confession).

To this, Hong Kong authorities had no response, limiting themselves to include in the draft legislation the following: “This section does not affect any claims, rights or entitlements on the ground of legal professional privilege.”

• hong kong
• china
• article 23
• basic law
• safeguarding national security bill
• oppression
• repression
• religious groups