Forbes op-ed saying security laws made Hong Kong ‘riskier place to do business’ rejected by gov’t as ‘misleading’
Hong Kong Free Press
The Hong Kong government has rejected an opinion article published by US publication Forbes Magazine, which claimed that the city had become a “far risker place to do business” following the enactment of two security laws.
In a statement released in the early hours of Thursday, the government said the commentary titled “Hong Kong’s Economy Is Now Risky Business” published by Forbes Magazine on Tuesday was “misleading.”
The article was penned by Olivia Enos, a senior fellow at Hudson Institute covering human rights and national security challenges in Asia. It cited a recent report by the Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong (CFHK) Foundation, which the Hong Kong government labelled as an “anti-China” group.
Led by Mark Clifford, former director of Next Digital which published pro-democracy newspaper Apple Daily before it shuttered in June 2021, the CFHK alleged that the Hong Kong government had facilitated the transfer of money and restricted technology to Russia, Iran and North Korea, helping the countries evade international sanctions.
The 72-page document cited an increase in trade between Hong Kong and the three countries, as well as Chief Executive John Lee’s statement in October 2022 that the city would not enforce global sanctions on Russia. The remarks gave the “green light to illicit operators to set up shop in the city,” the report claimed.
The report recommended the US take a number of actions against Hong Kong, including using its secondary sanctions authority block Hong Kong and Chinese banks from accessing US markets, as well as designating the city a primary money laundering concern.
In the opinion article, Enos called the report “ground-breaking,” saying its revelations showed that Hong Kong was a “serial sanction’s evader and emerging hub for illicit financial activities.”
She called on the US to “up the ante” on the financial tools used to counter what she described as illicit activities by Hong Kong. She echoed the report’s suggestion of designating Chinese banks as primary money laundering concerns, which would result in international banks refusing to do business with the named entities.
Enos also cited the Beijing-imposed national security law enacted in 2020, and the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance – better known as Article 23 – passed in March. The CFHK report showed that the rule of law in the city had degraded and that the implications of that went beyond civil and political liberties, also becoming economic and security concerns, her commentary read.
“It’s time for the business community and governments around the globe to wake up to the reality that Hong Kong is not the same – in fact, it’s a far riskier place to do business today than ever before,” the op-ed read.
In response, the Hong Kong government slammed the piece as “fabricating false and unfounded narratives against the implementation of sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council.” A government spokesperson said Hong Kong had all along implemented sanctions imposed by the UN body fully and fulfilled its international obligations.
“Certain countries may impose unilateral sanctions against some places on the basis of their own considerations. The HKSAR Government does not have the legal authority to, and it will not implement, unilateral sanctions imposed by other countries,” the government statement read.
The Hong Kong government went on to say that it had a constitutional duty to safeguard national security, and many common law jurisdictions such as the US, UK and Canada have their own national security legislation.
“Turning a blind eye to the fact and making blatant remarks, the anti-China organisation CFHK Foundation has demonstrated typical political hegemony and hypocrisy with double standards”, the spokesman added.
Separate to the 2020 Beijing-enacted security law, the homegrown Safeguarding National Security Ordinance targets treason, insurrection, sabotage, external interference, sedition, theft of state secrets and espionage. It allows for pre-charge detention of to up to 16 days, and suspects’ access to lawyers may be restricted, with penalties involving up to life in prison. Article 23 was shelved in 2003 amid mass protests, remaining taboo for years. But, on March 23, 2024, it was enacted having been fast-tracked and unanimously approved at the city’s opposition-free legislature.
The law has been criticised by rights NGOs, Western states and the UN as vague, broad and “regressive.” Authorities, however, cited perceived foreign interference and a constitutional duty to “close loopholes” after the 2019 protests and unrest.
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
