Recently, a piece of news in Hong Kong once again triggered a media debate: Anna Kwok Fung-yee, the executive director of the Hong Kong Democratic Foundation, who is wanted by the Hong Kong National Security Bureau for a reward of HK$1 million, has her father and her second elder brother arrested on charges of assisting in the handling of Anna;s funds. While her elder brother has been released on bail pending investigation, and the case is now adjourned until June 13 for further proceedings. This is the first time that the Hong Kong Police Force has invoked the offence of “handling funds belonging to an absconder” under the measures against absconders in the Maintenance of National Security Ordinance to arrest suspects for assisting in the handling of property in Hong Kong belonging to “specified absconders”. One cannot help but wonder, in the 21st century, whether the uncivilized way of governance of “connecting nine clans of the family” has resurfaced again.

The “guilt by association with nine clans” system is a representative system of guilt by association in Chinese history, which originated in the Qin Dynasty and reached its peak in the Ming and Qing Dynasties. The core idea is that if a person commits a crime, all his relatives and associates will be punished. During the Second Qin Dynasty, the prime minister Li Si was framed by Zhao Gao, and not only was he himself chopped into pieces, but his three clans were also executed. After the usurpation of Emperor Zhu Di of the Ming Dynasty, he ordered Fang Xiaoru to draft a document on his accession to the throne, but Fang refused, and as a result, he was punished with the execution of ten of his clans, including students and servants. During the Qing Dynasty, there were a number of cases in which relatives were implicated in the “delusion of the government”, such as the case of Cao Xueqin’s family, the author of The Dream of the Red Mansion, who were executed because of the “Case of Kangxi’s Guiqi”.

The detention of Ms. Kwok’s father pending trial reminds us of the modernization of Hong Kong today, which has not yet left the era of undeveloped people’s wisdom.

Who is Anna Kwok Fung-yee?

Kwok, 28, is an exiled lobbyist in Hong Kong and currently serves as the executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Hong Kong Democratic Committee: in 2023, she called on the U.S. government to ban Hong Kong Chief Executive Eric Li Ka-chiu from traveling to the United States to attend the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit, and in July 2023 she was put on the Hong Kong National Security Agency’s Most Wanted List, which is a list of 19 overseas activists who are wanted by the police in Hong Kong. In December 2024, Kwok’s Hong Kong status was revoked and she became stateless after she requested the U.S. government to grant her asylum as soon as possible after the warrant was made public. Kwok was accused of violating Hong Kong’s national security law by colluding with foreign or overseas forces to jeopardize national security, and the police offered a HK$1 million reward for her arrest.

According to the information, the National Security Bureau took away Kwok’s parents and two elder brothers on August 8 and 22 of the previous year, respectively, to investigate whether they had any form of contact or financial dealings with Kwok. At the time, Kwok responded on Facebook that her family “has never helped, is not aware of, and does not even know what I do”. She also said that the Hong Kong government was trying to harass her family to silence her in the U.S., but that she would not give up her work to pave the way for Hong Kong’s freedom and self-determination. In recent years, the national security police have repeatedly taken away the family members of wanted Hong Kong residents to assist in investigations, and in the first four months of this year, a total of 14 people have been taken away on nine occasions to assist in investigations. This is the first time a family member has been charged.

The cause of this incident stems from a police investigation, which revealed that Kwok’s father and others had traveled overseas to meet with Anna Kwok , and were suspected of illegally assisting in the handling of Anna’s insurance policies in Hong Kong after returning to Hong Kong. There is also evidence that Kwok’s father attempted to help Kwok to withdraw nearly HK$100,000 in cash balance from the insurance policy, and submitted a number of documents purporting to contain the signatures of both parties to the insurance company early this year. It is worth noting that Kwok’s second brother works for the insurance company, and the police suspect that he used his position and knowledge of the industry to assist in the transfer of the property.

Whose property?

Kwok’s father, Kwok Yin Sang, is reportedly a businessman with three children. One of his children, Ms. Kwok, went to the International School and studied in Norway, and later studied journalism and philosophy at New York University. For someone who can provide such an expensive education for his children, Kwok is believed to be a successful businessman and is presumably well off. On the other hand, how did Anna Kwok have the financial means to support herself, accumulate assets and take out insurance when she never had a high-paying job after graduation? If the insurance policy purchased in her name is regarded as her property and the father is sued under the National Security Law for handling his daughter’s property, is it in line with the spirit of the law, which has raised a lot of questions?

In traditional Chinese society, property is owned and developed by the family. After the death of the head of the family, the next generation will distribute the property among different members of the family according to the principles set by the family leader. In Western societies, individualism is emphasized, so property is distributed in the name of the individual, and Western law is based on this system of private ownership of property. Obviously, it is unlikely that Kwok Fung Yee’s property was accumulated from her income. Therefore, the government’s investigation into the handling of Kwok Fung Yee’s insurance policy, which involved only HK$100,000, is intended to send an important message that family members of fugitives will be prosecuted for any contact with the fugitives.

The Hong Kong Police Force’s action sends a clear message to the community that any attempt to challenge national security will be prosecuted, and those who assist the “specified absconders” will also be subject to legal sanctions, advising family members, friends or associates of absconders not to break the law, and that all absconders should turn back to Hong Kong as soon as possible and give themselves up. According to the existing laws of Hong Kong, handling of funds belonging to the absconders concerned is a serious crime, which is liable to a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment upon conviction.

Crackdown continues to escalate

Since mid-2023, the National Security Bureau of the Hong Kong Police Force has placed 19 Hong Kong residents in exile overseas, including Kwok Fung-yee, on the wanted list. It is alleged that after she left Hong Kong, she attended overseas meetings and activities in her capacity as a key member of the Hong Kong Democratic Committee, and lobbied foreign countries to sanction, blockade and carry out other hostile actions against the governments of China and Hong Kong, suspected to have violated the “collusion with a foreign country or foreign forces to endanger national security” in the Hong Kong National Security Law, and last year, on Christmas Eve, she was even arrested under the commonly known as the “National Security Law” for “colluding with foreign or overseas forces to jeopardize national security”. On Christmas Eve last year, six measures were imposed on Kwok and seven others, including revocation of their HKSAR passports and prohibition of providing them with funds, under the “Article 23” of the “Maintenance of National Security Ordinance”, which is commonly known as “Article 23”.

Kwok’s father, 68-year-old Kwok Yin-sang, is currently being returned to prison so that the prosecution can seize his cell phone and computer. Defense counsel pointed out that the defense needs to confirm whether the assets of the policy belong to Kwok Fung Yee or Kwok’s father, but the prosecution has not been able to do so, so bail has not been granted for the time being. The National Security Law Judge, Chief Magistrate So Wai Tak, subsequently decided to adjourn the case until the middle of next month, during which time the defendant could write to the court if he wished to apply for bail. The Hong Kong Democratic Committee, to which Ms. Kwok belongs, describes this unprecedented action by the Hong Kong government as an escalation of attacks on human rights defenders in the U.S., and urges the U.K. and the U.S. to take appropriate countermeasures.

Undoubtedly, this action highlights the dangerous expansion of Beijing’s complicity, which has been extended to Hong Kong. Blatantly implicating relatives in Hong Kong as a means of suppressing the voices of Hong Kong’s overseas pro-democracy dissidents is in complete defiance of basic human rights and the rule of law. What is even more disturbing is that this case is likely to develop into an ongoing retaliatory campaign against the families of Hong Kong’s exiled pro-democracy activists, a new pattern of intimidation and persecution aimed at spreading fear and suppressing pro-democracy and pro-human rights activities both within Hong Kong and internationally.

At this point, the response and support of the international community is all the more important. If Western countries insist on universal values, they must put pressure on Beijing and the Hong Kong authorities to immediately stop all acts of harassment and intimidation against the families of overseas Hong Kong democrats in Hong Kong. The international community can protect exiled Hong Kong pro-democracy activists and other critics of the Beijing authorities from intimidation and persecution similar to that of the Long Arm if it is determined to take concrete action to hold accountable the officials responsible for the human rights abuses in question, and to put in place a strong legal framework. Otherwise, the escalation of such persecution will only get worse.

The Powerful Influence of Culture

Anyone who knows a little bit about China’s 5,000 years of history will know that while one man’s success is rewarded by the rise of all family members, similarly, one man’s offense will implicate all men. Even in modern times, similar cases of vendetta killings often occur, such as a village headman bullying villagers and the angry headman killing his entire family and even babies in their infancy. This kind of time is rare in Western societies because when modern civilization began, Chinese civilization took a very different path from that of the rest of the world: China continued the tradition of the clan bloodline, which formed the current Chinese civilization, and which is still the nucleus of its civilization even today. Ancient Greece, on the other hand, blew up the clan-blood relationship and established a contractual form of social organization, which is also the originator of modern Western civilization.

There is also the influence of Christian thought on society. The New Testament emphasizes that the sins committed by the father cannot be borne by the children, and that God will not punish the offender’s next generation for these sins. The Bible also emphasizes that each person should be judged by God for his own sins, which laid the foundation for the principle of “guilt by association” in Western law. Especially after the Magna Carta in England, the royal power and the nobility reached a contractual relationship, in which both parties were close to equality, and this relationship was extended to the relationship between the government and the citizens in recent times. This is incomprehensible to the Chinese people who have long been obsessed with imperial power. It is only that today, the Hong Kong government has ignored the application of British law in Hong Kong for over a hundred years, and is now applying in Hong Kong the same uncivilized practices that have existed in China for thousands of years.

In this case, the ownership of the assets handled by Kwok’s father is one of the main points of contention between the prosecution and the defense. The defense pointed out that there is no bail application at this stage, saying that the crux of the case is the father of Kwok allegedly handled the policy, in the end is Kwok Fung Yee or his own assets, it takes time to review the policy, but the prosecution has not been provided, hope that the case is adjourned for a week, and then decide to reply to the direction of the direction and whether or not to apply for bail. Even if the defense can produce relevant evidence, it is not difficult for those who are familiar with the process of interpretation of the law “with Chinese characteristics” to imagine that the prosecution will find a way to make the evidence satisfy the conditions for the establishment of the charges.

However, in contemporary China, the idea of “linking nine clans to one’s family” has long permeated many corners of the country, such as the “political examination” that must be passed in order to get into the civil service, and the idea that “one person committing a crime affects three generations”, although it has no legal basis, has a real impact on real-life considerations. It’s just that birth is not a choice, and the behavior of parents will have an impact on their children, but that’s fate and has nothing to do with the law. The law cannot reinforce parental benevolence, nor can it make children worse off as a result of their parents’ bad luck. However, it will take time for this modern idea of democracy and the rule of law to take root in Chinese society, which has long been steeped in feudalism.

A year ago, the bloodshed in a large shopping center in Bondi Beach, Sydney, shocked the whole of Australia. After the incident, the murderer’s parents spoke out, grieving for the lives lost and pointing out that having a mentally ill child was a nightmare for the parents; they also claimed that they did not resent the policewoman for killing their son, as she was just doing her job. If we think like Chinese people, these parents would not be able to hold their heads up for the rest of their lives, let alone speak out to the media. As a society progresses towards civilization and the rule of law, it is essential to respect the rights of the individual, and the idea of “lumping” a family together should have been swept into the dustbin of history long ago.

Article/Editorial Department, Sameway Magazine

Photo/Internet

Pope Francis, who was called the “People’s Pope” by Time magazine at the age of 88 passed away on the morning after Easter, becoming a testament to a life of daily devotion to God.

Francis was the first pope born in South America and also the first Jesuit pope. He chose the name Francis after Saint Francis of Assisi who gave up wealth to live a life of poverty, thereby expressing his own life mission to the world. Over the past 12 years as pope, Francis has demonstrated his unwavering faith, consistently speaking out for the oppressed and conveying God’s compassion for the marginalized.

When Francis was elected pope, he was already 76 years old and not in ideal health. Earlier on he suffered from pneumonia and spent 38 days in the hospital, during which doctors said he had several near-death moments. Although doctors recommended at least two months of rest, Francis insisted on fulfilling his duties and presided over the Easter events. On Maundy Thursday, as per tradition, he still visited a prison. Though no longer physically able to follow the custom of washing the feet of inmates like Jesus did with His disciples, he offered them blessings instead. Francis repeatedly criticized President Trump and his administration’s policies, including the expulsion of refugees. However, just a day before his passing, Francis still met with visiting Vice President JD Vance and gave gifts to his three children.

Francis broke with many Vatican traditions. Upon taking office, he called for financial reform within the Catholic Church and emphasized transparency. He insisted on living simply, choosing not to reside in the papal residence in the Vatican, which has over ten rooms. Instead, he lived in a modest suite with only two rooms. Although Catholic doctrine opposes homosexuality, in 2023, Francis issued a decree allowing clergy to bless same-sex couples outside of the sacraments. He once said, “If a homosexual person seeks God with goodwill, who am I to judge?”

Francis hoped that all people would treat women who had abortions—especially due to poverty or sexual assault—with compassion: “Faced with such painful situations, who could remain unmoved?” Regarding the ban on divorced and remarried Catholics receiving the Eucharist, he criticized the idea that Communion should be reserved only for the perfect, saying its true purpose is “to nourish the weak.”

From the war in Ukraine to the conflict in Gaza, Francis tirelessly advocated for peace. In March of last year, he controversially suggested that Ukraine should have the “courage to raise the white flag” and pursue negotiations. Regarding Trump’s border wall to stop immigration, he said such actions were “not Christian.” Not long ago, he issued an open letter to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, declaring that Trump’s immigration policy was doomed to “begin and end in evils.”

It can be said that during his papacy, Pope Francis embodied how modern Christians can live out and uphold their faith under the weight of church history and tradition. Francis was a different kind of leader—one who, beyond national power and corporate wealth, set a life example for all people around the world to follow.

Mr. Raymond Chow, Publisher of Sameway Magazine

“A “woman” cannot be interpreted as someone who “reasonably believes” that she is a woman, and a deer cannot become a horse because someone “reasonably believes” that it is a horse” – Tonyee Chow Hang-tung, arguing in the appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

“Some people may say that the king’s lack of clothes is obvious to everyone, so what difference does it make whether or not it is said? … If we want to see changes in the outside world, we cannot remain unaware of them.”

“We must continue to burst the lies of power.” ‘No matter how many bubbles of lies, they are still fragile.’ ”It is not impossible to win, even if we have to pay a price.” — Written speech by Tonyee Chow Hang-tung

Introduction: Dissolved Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China (HKASPDMC) Accused of Two Offenses

The Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, or the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China (HKASPDMC) for short, is a former pan-democratic political organization in Hong Kong. It was founded on May 21, 1989, in the midst of the global Chinese mass rally in support of the 1989 pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong. From 1990 to 2019, the HKASPDMC has been organizing the June Fourth Rally and the Victoria Park Candlelight Vigil for 30 consecutive years to commemorate the June Fourth Incident and to express its insistence on the protection of China. For the first 22 years of its existence, the HKASPDMC was chaired by Mr. Szeto Wah, who was regarded as a lifelong patriot.

On August 25, 2021, the National Security Bureau of the police wrote to the Standing Committee and the person-in-charge of the HKASPDMC, stating that based on the police investigation, the Commissioner of Police had reasonable grounds to believe that the HKASPDMC was an “agent of a foreign country”, and requesting the HKASPDMC to submit the information and the relevant supporting documents to the Police Headquarters in writing, in person and in accordance with the requirements of the 5th Schedule of the 43rd Schedule of the Hong Kong National Security Law, within 14 days (September 7th).

On September 7, four members of the Standing Committee of the HKASPDMC submitted a letter to the Police Headquarters in Wan Chai, explaining their refusal to submit information on the membership and finances of the HKASPDMC as requested by the Police’s National Security Bureau. In its reply to the Police, the HKASPDMC said that the HKASPDMC was not a “foreign agent” and the Police had no right to request the HKASPDMC to provide the information. The HKASPDMC also considered that the Police had committed a legal error in requesting the HKASPDMC to provide the information, and was dissatisfied that the Police had not provided any justification for the refusal in the letter, which was considered to be a violation of the principle of natural justice.

On September 8, the Vice-Chairman of the HKASPDMC, Ms. Tonyee Chow Hang-tung, and members of the Standing Committee, Mr. Leung Kam-wai, Mr. Tang Ngok-kwan and Mr. Chan To-wai, were arrested by the Police National Security Bureau (NSB) at different locations in the morning and detained for investigation. Four of them were detained for investigation. Later, together with Tsui Hon-kwong, five people were charged.

On September 25, 2021, the EGM passed a resolution to dissolve the organization.

Subsequently, Leung Kam Wai and Chan To Wai, who had already been imprisoned for more than the maximum sentence for the alleged offense, pleaded guilty and were sentenced to three months’ imprisonment and released immediately. Tonyee Chow Hang Tung, Tang Ngok Kwan and Tsui Hon Kwong pleaded not guilty and were convicted on March 11, 2023 and sentenced to four and a half months’ imprisonment. Their appeals to the High Court were dismissed and they finally appealed to the Court of Final Appeal.

At present, the HKASPDMC, Lee Cheuk-yan, Albert Ho and Tonyee Chow Hang-tung are still being prosecuted for one count of “inciting subversion of state power”. The case has been referred to the High Court, and the trial date is tentatively set for May 6 this year, but the court said it may be postponed due to the judge’s lack of time to hear the case.

A Rare Small Victory

The HKASPDMC’s refusal to hand over information was unanimously ruled in favor of its appeal by the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (CFA) on June 6, with the convictions of Tonyee Chow Hang-tung, then vice-chairman of the HKASPDMC, and two former members of the Standing Committee of the HKASPDMC, namely, Tang Yuek-kwan and Tsui Hon-kwong, being quashed. The three were originally convicted and jailed for refusing to submit information about the organization to the police and were charged with violating the implementation details of the Hong Kong National Security Law. This is the first time that a case involving the Hong Kong National Security Law has been won at the Court of Final Appeal and the convictions quashed, a rare victory for Hong Kong’s pro-democracy camp.

The first case involving the implementation details of the Hong Kong National Security Law.

The HKASPDMC, famous for hosting the annual June 4 Candlelight Vigil in remembrance of the 1989 Tiananmen Square Incident, was disbanded in 2021 under the shadow of China’s enactment and full implementation of the Hong Kong National Security Law. Prior to its dissolution, the Hong Kong police’s National Security Bureau demanded that the organization provide information on its operations and finances, such as its members and donors, and accused it of being a “foreign agent” and of receiving HK$20,000 from an unnamed organization on suspicion of having ties to an overseas pro-democracy group. However, the HKASPDMC refused to cooperate, arguing that the authorities had arbitrarily labeled pro-democracy organizations as foreign agents and had no right to request information from them.

In March 2023, the Hong Kong Court of Appeal in West Kowloon stated that based on the background of the Alliance, the activities it organized and its relationship with people in Hong Kong and overseas over the past years, the Police had reasonable grounds to believe that the Alliance was a foreign agent. The judge found all the defendants guilty of the charge, as he considered that the activists were obliged to comply with the notification requirement to provide information, but did not intend to do so. But now, two years later, five judges of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal have unanimously held that the prosecution’s actions had “denied the defendants a fair trial” and ruled against the Department of Justice, which prosecuted on behalf of the Government.

In their judgment, the five Hong Kong CFA judges, headed by Chief Justice Andrew Cheung, said that the prosecution’s removal from evidence of the only material that would have established that the Alliance was a foreign agent was counterproductive to the prosecution’s case and “deprived the appellants of their right to a fair trial, resulting in their conviction involving an unfair trial”. Specifically, the Department of Justice had to prove that the HKASPDMC was in fact an “agent of a foreign state”, and the invocation of “public interest immunity” to substantially cover up the NSA’s investigation report denied the defendant access to the prosecution’s case, deprived him of his right to a fair trial, and rendered the Department of Justice’s conviction unsafe without any evidence to substantiate its case.

The Court also pointed out that the trial magistrate, Mr. Justice Lo Tak Chuen, had emphasized that in order to “effectively” safeguard national security, it was sufficient for the police to have reasonable grounds to believe that the HKASPDMC was an agent, and that the High Court Judge, Ms. Justice Lai Yuen Kei, had further ruled on appeal that the Defendant was unable to challenge the validity of the police notification letter, and that the ruling of the High Court Judge was wrong in both cases. The Court of Final Appeal pointed out that the courts could not ignore the protection of rights in the discharge of their duty to safeguard national security. This is the first time that a national security defendant has been acquitted in a final judgment. In the past, the Court of Final Appeal has lost national security cases, including the bail case of Jimmy Lai, the bail case of the defendant in the “Guardians of the Sheep Village” case, and the case of Lui Sai-yu’s commutation of sentence. Before leaving the court, Chow smiled and raised the “V” sign. Outside the court, Tang said “justice lies in the hearts of the people”, while Tsui replied that “unjust incarceration is untenable”.

From an oasis of rule of law to a “police state

During a hearing at the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal in January this year, Tonyee Chow Hang-tung defended herself in court, saying that the case highlighted what a police state is, and that a police state is the result of the courts’ connivance of such abuse of power. This connivance must stop immediately. China’s state security apparatus, which has always operated largely in the shadows, has been expanded in recent years by the Communist Party as a defender against threats to Communist rule, public order and national unity. With the introduction of the Hong Kong National Security Law a few years ago, China’s police state was rightfully extended to Hong Kong, where the Chinese security agencies will not be subject to the supervision of local laws and courts.

The open and unregulated nature of the security agencies’ operations represents a significant change for Hong Kong, which has long labeled itself an oasis of law and order. Hong Kong’s national security law introduced vaguely defined offenses, such as secession and collusion, that could well have been used to stifle protests. This was also the case when, on the first full day of the law, the Hong Kong police arrested protesters as a demonstration of the new powers given to the police under the law.

Although the Court of Final Appeal overturned the original verdict, Tonyee Chow Hang-tung , Tang Yuek Kwan and Tsui Hon-kwong were sentenced to 4.5 months in prison for “failing to comply with the notification requirement for the provision of information”, and all three of them have already served their sentences. In fact, for this kind of situation where the sentence is very short and the case is still under appeal, it is entirely possible to apply for bail. However, I do not know whether it is because the application of the Hong Kong National Security Law has increased the political sensitivity of the case that bail was not granted in this case. And it seems that there is no follow-up protection for the three people who have already served their sentences, so one cannot help but ask – is justice belatedly done, or is it still justice?

The June 4 Candlelight Vigil in Victoria Park was an annual event in Hong Kong to commemorate the victims of the June 4 Incident, organized by the HKASPDMC every year from 1990 to 2019, and held at the hard-surface soccer pitch in Victoria Park. The event was once the world’s largest June 4 commemoration, with tens to hundreds of thousands of participants each year. Hong Kong used to be the only place in Chinese territory where the victims of the June 4 Tiananmen Square incident in 1989 could be publicly commemorated, but in recent years the commemoration has gone underground. Since the central government imposed national security laws on Hong Kong in 2020, almost all forms of dissent have become criminalized in the city. As of early March this year, Hong Kong authorities have arrested 320 people on charges of endangering national security, of whom 161 have been convicted.

The Future of National Security Law in Hong Kong’s Judicial Practice

As a high standard common law jurisdiction, Hong Kong should strike a reasonable balance between safeguarding national security and protecting human rights. Specifically, it should not only implement the Hong Kong National Security Law, but also respect and protect the requirements of the Basic Law and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Under common law principles, the law should be understood as a whole. Therefore, when the court interprets the elements of Schedule 5 to the legislation, it should not only consider the textual formulation of the Schedule, but should also consider the elements of Schedule 7 to the legislation where necessary and relevant. For example, in applying to the Court for an order to furnish information or produce material, the judge has to be satisfied that there are “reasonable grounds” for suspecting that a person is in possession of the information or material and that the information or material is likely to be relevant to the investigation.

Of course, the Court of Final Appeal’s ruling does not undermine the police’s investigative powers in national security cases. Even if it cannot be proved for the time being that a person or an organization belongs to “a foreign agent, a Taiwanese agent, or an agent or manager thereof”, the police can still apply to the court on the basis of “reasonable belief”, and after sufficient evidence has been provided, the court will issue an order for the provision of information or the production of materials in accordance with the law. This arrangement is in line with the propriety of the legal procedures and demonstrates the respect and protection of human rights.

Commenting on the final judgment of the case, Mr. Sun Qingnuo, Deputy Director of the Office of National Security of the Central People’s Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, when asked whether there were loopholes in the Hong Kong National Security Law that needed to be amended, said that the Hong Kong National Security Law could be improved continuously, including through the National People’s Congress (NPC)’s interpretation of the Basic Law. On the other hand, Professor Albert Chan of the Faculty of Law of the University of Hong Kong is of the view that the case of the HKASPDMC only involves the interpretation by the Court of Final Appeal of individual provisions of the implementation details, and does not involve the interpretation of the Basic Law by NPC. Mr. Ronny Tong, a member of the Executive Council, also analyzed that an interpretation of the Basic Law by the NPC is unlikely at this stage. The SAR Government has already indicated that it will study the judgment and the relevant legal principles, and examine how to further improve the relevant legal system and enforcement mechanism, so as to more effectively prevent, stop and punish acts endangering national security, and to continue to strengthen law enforcement power.

In recent years, the Hong Kong Government has repeatedly emphasized on different occasions that safeguarding national security is a top priority for Hong Kong. The protection of national security is not a work in progress, but a work in progress. Meanwhile, the international community has never ceased to worry that the Hong Kong National Security Law will further undermine civil liberties and fundamental freedoms, and a number of international organizations have been committed to calling for the repeal of this law and for the cessation of interpreting co-operation with United Nations agencies as a threat to national security. It is conceivable that after the first final victory for the defendants of the Hong Kong National Security Law, these two forces will further tussle with each other – whether Hong Kong’s long-proud judicial independence will be reduced to a tool of the Hong Kong National Security Law, or whether this case will rekindle Hong Kong people’s hopes for the re-establishment of a civil society is still very much an unknown. This is still a big unknown.

Article/Editorial Department Sameway Magazine

Photo/Internet