Senior officials from the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) offered additional insights on Sunday regarding the Article 23 legislation, addressing public criticism of local governance and elucidating major conditions for the conviction of foreign interference offenses. The legislation also encompasses materials related to critical infrastructure within the scope of state secrets.
Secretary for Security Chris Tang Ping-keung, responding to queries on a television program about the legality of criticizing Legislative Council (LegCo) members or district councilors under Article 23, stated that commenting on public officials’ performance is reasonable. However, comments delivered provocatively, with bias or factual inaccuracies aimed at inciting hatred, could potentially violate the law.
Emphasizing that “incitement to hatred” is not a new concept and is covered in existing legislation, Tang highlighted that Article 23 aims to enhance legislation and address potential risks. The proposed legislation introduces a new offense, “foreign interference offense,” which Secretary for Justice Paul Lam Ting-kwok clarified to include obeying foreign instructions, accepting financial support, and acting as a proxy. Lam stated that expressing opinions within legal boundaries concerning HKSAR government actions related to foreign affairs does not violate the law unless there is exaggeration, incitement, or threats.
Addressing concerns raised by a local scholar regarding the investigation into COVID-19 origins, Lam clarified that criminal offenses pertain to objective facts, not expressions of opinions. He stressed that false statements relate to factual issues, and exaggerated examples should not cause unnecessary societal concerns. Lam affirmed that Article 23 does not prohibit communication but targets cooperation with foreign forces using improper means and specific intent, excluding normal communication activities.
Tang clarified that environmental groups or labor organizations communicating with foreign entities, followed by peaceful protests like sit-ins, would not be seen as inappropriate pressure on the government, provided it doesn’t hinder LegCo functions. Regarding theft of state secrets and espionage, Tang differentiated cases, stating that information related to critical infrastructure could potentially fall under state secrets, depending on the threat to public safety. He emphasized the need for Article 23 to regulate seemingly confidential information to prevent panic and potential harm to national security.
The HKSAR government is considering measures, including extending the 48-hour detention limit, to ensure law enforcement agencies have sufficient time to investigate national security cases. The current proposal for Article 23 legislation doesn’t specify penalties, with Lam indicating that the consultation aims to discuss offense elements and defense arguments. While penalties remain unclear, reference to penalties in other jurisdictions suggests life imprisonment as the highest penalty.