Latest directive from Hong Kong gov't: Protect national security from subversives in saunas

HKFP

a day ago

Here's one from our 'you could not make it up' department. In Hong Kong, you will soon need, in effect, a security clearance to operate a steam bath machine.
This is the latest message from the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department, which is supposed to regulate the restaurant business, among other things, but is now, like most parts of the government, trying very hard to look as if it is making a contribution to national security.
You would think this was quite difficult. What could be subversive about commercial food?
Where there's a will, there's a way. The FEHD has been sending a letter to restaurants, warning that a new condition will be added to the licences for restaurants and other food outlets.
This will state the proprietor's intentions as follows: 'I shall ensure that no act or activity engaged or involved in by me or any of my related persons… may constitute or cause the occurrence of an offence endangering national security under the National Security Law or other laws of the HKSAR, or conduct [that] is otherwise contrary to the interests of national security or the interest of the public (including public morals, public order and/or public safety) of Hong Kong.'
'Related persons', the letter adds, include directors, management, employees, agents, and subcontractors. Similar conditions, according to local media, are also to be imposed on cinemas, gaming centres, funeral parlours, and saunas. Failure to keep to the new conditions will lead to the loss of the licence.
Chief Executive John Lee defended the new arrangements with a straight face at a press conference as 'appropriate and the right thing to do.'
He added: 'Offending conduct means any offence that endangers national security, or acts and events that are contrary to national security and public interest in Hong Kong. It is very clear.'
But it is not very clear at all. 'An offence' and 'national security' are legal terms subject to carefully framed definitions to which citizens may refer, although at some risk of disappointment. But what are we to make of 'acts and events' which are contrary to 'public interest'?
The new arrangement looks disturbingly like an attempt to make a large group of people – of whom, by coincidence, the government disapproves – unemployable in a wide range of venues and industries, because the proprietor will fear that the inclusion of one of them in his 'related persons' will lead to loss of his licence.
It is, of course, true that many jobs or professions are barred to some people because of features in their background: medics, teachers, district councillors, bus captains, the Pope… But such restrictions are justified by the need for a qualification or the potential for harm.
Does the Hong Kong government seriously expect us to believe that national security will be endangered if the flunky who hands you your towel in the sauna has dubious views about the merits of the Chinese Communist Party? Are there really dangerous opportunities for an active subversive employed in a funeral parlour?
Then there is the question of who is actually affected and how we are to know who they are. I do not see how this new arrangement can be compatible with our frequently voiced devotion to the common law. After all, we are all supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.
The government, or the restaurant proprietor, may suspect that a would-be waiter has an eccentric view of the 'public interest'. But an opinion is not a crime. If a person has infringed the law, he will and should be prosecuted. During his custodial sentence,e he will not be in the market for jobs in restaurants, or anywhere else.
Upon his release, having as the old phrase has it 'paid his debt to society,' he is again entitled to all the legal rights of a citizen, including the right to be presumed innocent until a court decides otherwise.
Clearly, though, the FEHD intends its restriction to cover a wide area. Unless the department proposes to publish a black list of people unsuitable for employment in cinemas or funeral parlours, there is going to be a tricky edge zone. Here, neither the employer nor his potential underling knows what the position is, and there will be a temptation for the employer to err on the side of safety.
I really do not think it would be a good idea if there were a large group of Hongkongers subject to restrictions on their employment (as well as engagement in politics) like those imposed on English Quakers in the 18th century or Jews in the Austrian Empire in the 19th century. Will this make them love Big Brother?
I also note the danger that the FEHD's initiative will be copied by other departments. Will similar conditions attach to my next dog licence?
HKFP is an impartial platform & does not necessarily share the views of opinion writers or advertisers. HKFP presents a diversity of views & regularly invites figures across the political spectrum to write for us. Press freedom is guaranteed under the Basic Law, security law, Bill of Rights and Chinese constitution. Opinion pieces aim to point out errors or defects in the government, law or policies, or aim to suggest ideas or alterations via legal means without an intention of hatred, discontent or hostility against the authorities or other communities.