When a new National Security Law for Hong Kong went into effect on June 30, 2020, some observers believed it might serve more as a latent threat than an active tool. Many hoped both the Hong Kong government and Beijing might see the enactment of the law itself as a sufficient deterrent, a signal of Beijing’s resolve to turn the page on the widespread public protests in 2019.
Any hopes for restraint have, thus far, been dashed. In the nine months since the National Security Law (NSL) was passed, more than 90 people have been arrested under the new legislation. Though they have been charged with various breaches of national security ranging from inciting secession to terrorism, their primary crime appears to be peaceful criticism of the government. If found guilty, they face prison sentences that could stretch on for years, or even, in some cases, for life. The government has also used the law to reshape Hong Kong’s civil service, to reform the education sector, and to restrict press freedom.
A closer look at the arrests under the NSL or conducted by the newly-created National Security Department (NSD) of the Hong Kong Police paints a clearer picture of how authorities in Hong Kong have implemented the new law, and what they might hope to achieve. The case data, assembled by the Georgetown Center for Asian Law, draws on an extensive review of media reports and interviews with experts who have been closely following the implementation of the law.
Hong Kong’s government has made regular use of the NSL since its first full day as binding law. On July 1, 10 individuals were arrested under the NSL. They had been taking part in protests that day marking the 23rd anniversary of Hong Kong’s reversion to Chinese sovereignty. As of May 3, 92 individuals have been arrested for alleged crimes under the NSL, including 19 individuals who have been arrested for a combination of crimes under the NSL and under other laws. The NSD has also arrested 21 individuals for crimes not covered by the NSL, bringing the total number of cases included in this dataset to 113. These last 21 arrests seem to be in violation of the NSD’s already broad statutory mandate. Launched concurrently with the NSL, the newly formed NSD is tasked with implementing the new law, and does not have clear legal authority to investigate non-NSL crimes.
Can such broad application of the NSL be justified as an appropriately robust response to a legitimate state security threat? The answer seems to be no. We were unable to unearth any information that would justify the radical increase in national security-related arrests and criminal charges since the NSL went into effect. According to publicly-available information on the cases that have emerged thus far, the vast majority of NSL arrests would not be considered national security cases in other rights-respecting jurisdictions.
No comments:
Post a Comment