Big Lychee, Various Sectors

HKFP reports a rare thing in Hong Kong these days: a demonstration. But it’s not anti-government. Well, it’s anti-UK government…

The Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (HKFTU) on Tuesday protested against the jailing of retired police officer Bill Yuen, who worked as a manager at the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office (HKETO), which represents Hong Kong’s government in London. 

The jailing of Yuen was a “complete political manipulation and judicial fabrication, interfering with China’s internal policies and Hong Kong affairs,” Stanley Ng, HKFTU chair and a lawmaker, said in Cantonese.

Two dozen people showed up. Their banners and placards featured slogans in English as well as Chinese, which is unusual in the pro-Beijing milieu. Ng and the FTU did not invent their own phrases or demands – they are standard-issue terms used by Beijing officials. For example, the PRC ambassador in London…

…[urged] the UK to reverse what he called a political manipulation against China, halt the arrests and convictions of Chinese citizens, and stop supporting anti-China groups.

Ambassador Zheng leads us to the interesting part: both the convicted men – Bill Yuen and Peter Wai – hold UK citizenship. When they convict UK citizen Jimmy Lai in Hong Kong, the Hong Kong/Chinese authorities insist that he is Chinese. When the UK courts convict such dual nationals in London, they are… still Chinese.

Some weekend reading and viewing…

Donald Clarke’s Chinese Law Notes on Beijing’s new ‘ethnic unity law’…

Will China actually use these provisions to prosecute foreigners it doesn’t like? Perhaps they are hoping to get the benefit of scaring people without paying the cost in bad publicity of actually prosecuting anyone. There’s just no way at this point to know, and whatever aims the central government has in mind (assuming it has a unified view), we can’t be sure officials at lower levels won’t try to score points by patriotically prosecuting meddling foreigners. You can avoid danger, of course, by staying out of China—and Hong Kong, and Macau, and any countries, with or without extradition treaties, that are likely to be vulnerable to Chinese pressure.

Via his Substack, Michael Kovrig on ‘buck-passing and bandwagoning’ among European countries when it comes to resisting Beijing’s mercantilism…

Last year every EU member state ran a trade deficit with China for the first time, with the total EU-China deficit hitting €359 billion (yep, about a billion euros a day) — roughly double the pre-pandemic figure. China’s exports to the EU are up another 16% in the first half of this year. The Economist notes that bankruptcies are running at levels last seen in 2015. Germany, the industrial heartland, shed 143,000 manufacturing jobs last year…  

Compounding the problem for European leaders is that the Chinese Communist Party has demonstrated willingness to mete out punishment against countries that impose trade and investment barriers or otherwise frustrate its ambitions. It has a track record of weaponizing access to China’s market, squeezing dependent firms to influence government policy, and using control of supply chains for coercion. That’s why at the European Council meeting, the session in which leaders debated the threat was billed as focusing euphemistically on “global macroeconomic imbalances.” One is reminded of the dictum of another French statesman, Talleyrand: speech was given to man to disguise his thoughts. 

…States facing a rising threat decline to confront it and instead hope somebody else will bear the burden of doing so. For the EU, each member would be better off if the bloc collectively balanced against Beijing. But for any single government, the smart move, given that the others are hanging back, is also to hang back…

In Foreign Affairs, Patricia Kim doubts whether Beijing’s transactional and tightly focused foreign policy can translate into international leadership…

Unlike the United States, which built a network of alliances and underwrote the postwar order, and the Soviet Union, which controlled a formal bloc of communist states through the Warsaw Pact, China has shown little interest in assuming responsibility for a rival order or even a tightly organized coalition. Beijing instead seeks global reach without entanglement, partnerships without binding obligations, and great-power status without the burdens of leadership. 

…China has been practicing what might be called a “China first” strategy—prioritizing its narrow interests while disclaiming global responsibilities—long predating the current “America first” policy championed by the Trump administration. 

…China sustains its partners [such as Russia and Venezuela] economically and shields them diplomatically but won’t defend them when it matters most.

…Many partners publicly back China at international forums … these gains … may bolster the legitimacy of the Chinese Communist Party and help Beijing shape international discourse, but they rarely translate into meaningful alignment or costly action. It remains unclear whether China could lean on its friends in a major crisis.

There are already signs that Chinese leaders doubt the reliability of their partners. For instance, when the Trump administration imposed sweeping global tariffs at the height of last year’s U.S.-Chinese trade tensions, Beijing feared that its partners might strike side deals with Washington—restricting Chinese exports in exchange for tariff relief. Chinese officials responded with threats of “reciprocal countermeasures.” 

…Even as confidence in the United States has wavered and American allies have strengthened economic ties with China, Beijing has struggled to convert that engagement into strategic alignment. For states such as France, Germany, Japan, and South Korea, China is an important economic partner and a consequential great power that must be dealt with, but it is seen as neither a potential security partner nor a credible leader of a durable global order.

A video showing Hong Kong ‘going backwards’. The account that posted it on Chinese social media has been banned.

A 1960s Dutch psychedelic band called Dragonfly did something like this – in the second half of their vid…

From HKFP…

Police said in a statement just after midnight on Thursday that a woman, 33, and a man, 32, were arrested on Wednesday. The pair allegedly displayed and sold “seditious” titles and “received multiple remittances from foreign political organisations,” they said. 

Local media reports identified the woman as ex-Civic Party district councillor Leticia Wong, who runs Hunter Bookstore in Sham Shui Po…

In the statement, police said the two allegedly sold seditious titles that stoked hatred against Hong Kong authorities, the judiciary, and law enforcement agencies. They were suspected of violating the city’s homegrown national security law, the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, commonly known as Article 23. 

…Last year, HKFP reported that Hunter Bookstore had faced dozens of inspections and audits by various government departments. 

…In March, independent bookseller Pong Yat-ming and three of the staff members of his Book Punch store were reportedly arrested on suspicion of selling seditious titles, including a biography of jailed media mogul Jimmy Lai. 

No details as to what the ‘seditious’ books are, let alone how they stoked hatred of the authorities. Nor of the ‘foreign political organizations’ that sent ‘multiple remittances’. However, the Standard states that…

Hunter Bookstore had been selling books that defame the central and SAR governments and glorify the 2019 unrest, including the biography of Jimmy Lai and works by anti-government figures. It also hosted talks and sharing sessions targeting young people, and collaborated with other anti-government shops on exhibitions and film screenings.

Government statement. A pic of police ‘rectifying’ the shop window here.

From a year ago – a Japanese outlet’s feature on the store…

Friends and customers often ask Wong if she’s afraid to be selling these kinds of books.

When I ask her the same question, she replies, “I want to ask the opposite. Why are you afraid? What exactly is so frightening? If you look fear in the eye, you might realize it’s not as terrifying as it seems.”

Hunter Bookstore has been inspected several times by government officials.

“They’re just trying to intimidate. If I’ve broken a law, they can arrest me,” Wong says calmly.

The LA Times picks up the story.

RTHK reports…

Secretary for Culture, Sports and Tourism Rosanna Law on Tuesday said she is confident the tourism sector could meet the government’s target in accounting for about five percent of the city’s gross domestic product by 2029.

…Law said the target is not “aggressive”, given the city’s track record in being a tourism hub.

Last year, the industry accounted for about three percent of the city’s GDP.

“I think with improved connectivity, with high-speed rail and good cross-boundary facilities, it’s natural that the flow of people in Hong Kong and nearby cities, including Shenzhen, would improve and would increase,” she said.

…While many residents have headed to Shenzhen during weekends or on long holidays for its increasing number of attractions and low prices, the minister said it is “unrealistic” for the SAR to expect other cities, which compete with Hong Kong for tourists, to remain unchanged.

Instead, the city should continue to grow, she said, offering attractions that benefit locals and tourists alike.

So if we can build on our current tourism levels – 50 million in 2025 – we can push the industry’s share from 3% to 5% of GDP. Based on raw visitor numbers, that implies an increase to over 80 million tourists. Where will the extra 30 million people go? How do they fit onto the sidewalks, trains and buses?

And, although 3% vs 5% of GDP sounds like a lot of money, how do we know tourism actually boosts net wealth? Assuming the extra visitors increase demand for certain retail spaces, their presence will push up rent for existing stores, which in turn increases the cost of living for local residents. In some cases, stores serving local consumers might end up going out of business. Local entrepreneurs will see narrower opportunities. On a net basis, the extra two percentage points of GDP might simply be cancelled out by lower GDP in other sectors.

Hong Kong bureaucrats have a fixation with tourism – perhaps because it’s so easy to measure visitor numbers and interpret them as a sign of success. That said, Rosanna Law seems to recognize that by cramming more tourists into Hong Kong, you worsen local quality of life and encourage residents to cross the border for cheaper and less crowded leisure experiences…

“First of all is of course ensure that whatever we are offering to our local people, it should continue to be of good quality, value for money. But together, I think we also have to ensure that whatever we are offering to our visitors, from our nearby cities would be attractive, novel, and also value for money,” the official said.

“This way, I think the flow of people, the flow of visitors will be mutually beneficial.”

But maybe it’s not mutually beneficial. Higher-spending Hongkongers go to Shenzhen for weekends, while more Mainlanders bring packed lunches over the border to have their photos taken standing outside colonial architecture…

Looking ahead, Law said Hong Kong would continue to offer cultural experiences at historic buildings — similar to the old Yau Ma Tei police station exhibition — which she described as very successful.

“We are actually thinking of how to enrich it [the experience] even further, and to maybe even collaborate with nearby shops. One of them has already introduced a nostalgic theme in their packaging,” she said.

“So I think that is a good potential of showing what Hong Kong is like, and what is uniquely Hong Kong to our visitors.”

Haw Par Mansion in Tai Hang, for instance, could showcase the unique East meets West cultural environment of the SAR, Law added.

The 30 million extra visitors go to Haw Par Mansion. Overcrowding problem solved.

The Hong Kong government’s strategy: try desperately to keep rents absurdly high – regardless of far lower costs just over the border – while simultaneously striving for economic vibrancy. (In order to enable over-inflated civil-service salaries, perhaps?)

A couple of other stories of note today.

From the Standard – the average size of new homes in Hong Kong has fallen from 50.4 sq m [542 sq ft] in 1996 to 37.2 sq m [400 sq ft] in 2024…

Nearly half of the units completed in 2024 were under 40 sq m, compared with only 4 percent in 2000, the study said.

Despite the recovery of Hong Kong property completion from the post-2000 trough, the unit size is shrinking, the report said.

Private housing showed diverging trends in sizes: the share of completions under 40 sq m rose from 18 percent in 1995 to 45 percent in 2024, while that of 70 sq m or above decreased from 26 percent to 11 percent, the study said.

Large private homes have shifted from a mainstream product to a marginal share of new supply, it added.

Again, purely down to government policy of prioritizing land revenues over basic living standards. How does it help Hong Kong?

And HKFP reports on a mother pleading guilty to manslaughter after beating and starving her five-year-old child to death in Sham Shui Po. Warning: this is about as grim as it gets.

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.