Article 23: Hong Kong proposes dissolving organisations accused of ‘external interference’
Hong Kong Free Press
A new law under the city’s proposed homegrown national security legislation may see organisations accused of “external interference” dissolved if they are ordered to cease operations.
The proposed law intends to criminalise interfering with government, court, legislative, or electoral affairs by “improper means,” through collaboration with external forces, and comes with a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison, according to a bill tabled to the city’s legislature on Friday morning.
The Legislative Council convened a special meeting on Friday morning for the first reading of the Safeguarding National Security Bill – known locally as Article 23.
The introduction of the bill came just nine days after the end of a one-month public consultation period, which prompted more than 13,000 submissions, 97 per cent of which expressed support for the new security law, according to the government.
If it passes Hong Kong’s opposition-free legislature, the new law would empower the secretary for security to prohibit operations of an organisation if there is reason to believe that it is “necessary for safeguarding national security.”
See also: Hong Kong’s new national security law seeks to criminalise ‘external interference,’ cyber attacks
However, it was also proposed that such prohibition orders must not be made without first allowing the organisation “an opportunity to be heard or to make written representations” as to why such an order should not be made.
An organisation accused of external interference with bodies including foreign governments and political parties, as well as international organisations, “is dissolved on the taking effect of the order prohibiting the operation or continued operation of the organisation,” the bill reads.
Presumptions and implications
The bill proposes that a defendant is presumed to have acted on behalf of an external force if they communicated with the external force “in relation to the intent or a matter in connection with the intent” to cause interference.
The presumption also applies if the defendant knew, “or ought to have known”, that their actions would result in the force achieving its aims or otherwise benefit it.
The bill also proposes criminalising making “false or misleading representations” which “may be express or implied” to obscure an intent to cause interference with an external force.
Making false statements constitutes an “improper means” of causing interference, alongside using violence, destroying or damaging property, causing financial loss, or damaging a person’s reputation — or threatening to do so.
Knowingly making a false statement or causing “mental injury” or “undue mental pressure” also amounts to an improper means, according to the bill.
The bill proposes defining collaboration with an external force as participating in an activity planned or led by an external force; acting on behalf of, or in cooperation with an external force; acting under the control, supervision, or request of an external force; or acting with financial contributions from an external force.
It proposes that an “interference effect” takes the form of influencing Legislative Council members or interfering with any legislative processes, influencing court functions and the administration of justice, and interfering with any electoral process.
It also lists “prejudicing… the relationship between China and any foreign country,” between Beijing and the Hong Kong government, between Beijing and “any other region of China,” and the relationship between Hong Kong and “any foreign country” as a form of interference.
Article 23 of the Basic Law stipulates that the government shall enact laws on its own to prohibit acts of treason, secession, sedition and subversion against Beijing. Its legislation failed in 2003 following mass protests and it remained taboo until after the onset of the separate, Beijing-imposed security law in 2020. Pro-democracy advocates fear it could have a negative effect on civil liberties but the authorities say there is a constitutional duty to ratify it.
Support HKFP | Policies & Ethics | Error/typo? | Contact Us | Newsletter | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps
Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team
