The government has condemned an opinion piece about the city’s “lost freedom” published by the New York Times, the latest letter to media in a campaign to counter critical press coverage of the recently-enacted homegrown security law.
In a letter written to the Times’ editor on Wednesday, Secretary for Security Chris Tang claimed the op-ed, titled “Hong Kongers Now Only Whisper About Freedom,” was “extremely misleading.”
“We strongly urge The New York Times to ensure that reports concerning Hong Kong are
fair and just, and stop making scaremongering remarks,” Tang wrote.
Published on Tuesday, the opinion piece was written by Maya Wong, acting China director for the US based NGO Human Rights Watch, which is sanctioned by Beijing. Wong said in the piece that – following swift enactment of Article 23, the new security law – some Hongkongers were trying to dispose of some sensitive books and videos to avoid legal risks.
“Hong Kong was once a place where people did not live in fear…” Wong wrote. “Not anymore. Now Hong Kong people are quietly taking precautions, getting rid of books, T-shirts, film footage, computer files and other documents from the heady days when this international financial center was also known for its residents’ passionate desire for freedom.”
Hongkongers will need a “reasonable defence” for keeping “seditious publications” at home, Tang – himself – said on March 11.
Wang also described the Beijing-imposed security law and Article 23 as “broad, vague and blunt instruments” to facilitate the government’s crackdown.
In response, Tang said the new national security law targets offences “with precision” and “defines elements of offences with clarity.”
“Law-abiding persons (including ordinary travellers to Hong Kong) will not engage in acts and
activities endangering our national security and will not unwittingly violate the law, ” Tang said.
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.
Enacted on Saturday, 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.
In his response to Wang, the security chief added that – according to the new law – a person will commit the offence of possessing seditious publication “only if he or she possesses a publication that has a seditious intention without reasonable excuse.”
“It is not possible for a person who does not know that the publication concerned has a seditious intention to be convicted, ” Tang said.
Leader of response and refute team
In January, the government announced it was setting up a “response and refute team” to promote national security legislation and rebut criticism of the then-proposed bill for Article 23.
Over the past month, the security chief – tasked with leading the team – has hit back at criticism of Article 23 by UK foreign minister David Cameron, US Consul General Gregory May, as well as by a series of foreign media outlets.
Tang slammed a Bloomberg opinion piece that called the draft security legislation “worryingly vague,” and called a The Washington Post editorial on the proposed legislation “misleading and inappropriate.”
Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team
