Hong Kong transgender activist mounts new legal challenge over ID card rules
Advertisement
In a written judicial review application seen by the Post on Monday, Henry Edward Tse's lawyers argued that the Immigration Department's new regulations regarding the alteration of identity cards' gender category remained legally flawed despite a
landmark ruling that called for a policy change.
Tse's lawyers also called for a statutory scheme to ensure the recognition of transgender individuals, arguing that the government's failure to allow for the legal recognition of Tse's acquired gender violated his rights to privacy and equality.
In February 2023, the 34-year-old activist and an anonymous applicant won a high-profile challenge at the Court of Final Appeal after they complained against being barred from changing the gender markers on their Hong Kong ID cards without undergoing full reassignment surgery.
The top court found that the commissioner of registration, a role filled by the director of immigration, had violated the two transgender men's privacy rights under the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights.
Advertisement
But the top appeal court's five presiding judges stressed that the change of status on the identity card would not affect the legal status of the cardholder's gender at birth.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
HKFP
5 hours ago
- HKFP
Hong Kong man arrested for allegedly threatening media outlets to publish ‘seditious' report
Hong Kong's national security police have arrested a man for allegedly threatening multiple media outlets to publish a report promoting a fundraising website for wanted activists. A 43-year-old man surnamed Tse was arrested in Fanling on Thursday in connection with intimidating letters sent in June to several local media organisations, police said at a press conference on Friday. According to Superintendent Chow Hok-yin, the letters demanded that media outlets publish a report about a website claiming to sell products to raise money for overseas activists wanted by Hong Kong authorities. The website also claimed that proceeds would be used to support activities calling for foreign sanctions on Hong Kong officials and judges. The letters warned that failure to publish the report could result in arson attacks on the media outlets' offices. As the letters and the report allegedly contained elements endangering national security, the case was taken over by the police's national security department, Chow said. Police said the website was hosted on an overseas server, and Tse is suspected to be its creator. Officers found image and text files used to create the website on Tse's computer, along with a document listing the names and office addresses of various local media outlets. Tse was arrested under the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance – commonly known as Article 23 – for alleged 'seditious intention.' He also faces charges of suspected criminal intimidation. Chow declined to name the media organisations involved. Sedition is not covered by the Beijing-imposed national security law, which targets secession, subversion, collusion with foreign forces, and terrorism and carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. It was previously criminalised under the colonial-era Crimes Ordinance, with a maximum penalty of two years in prison. That law was repealed in March 2024, when Hong Kong enacted its homegrown security legislation, which raised the penalty for sedition to up to seven years in prison. Separate from 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 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.
HKFP
a day ago
- HKFP
Children of non-local talent can apply for subsidised university places only after 2-year residency in Hong Kong
The Hong Kong government has issued a new definition of 'local students' in tertiary education, saying that children of non-local talent can only be eligible for subsidised local tuition fees after residing in the city for at least two years. According to a government statement on Thursday, as a transitional arrangement, the residency requirement will be set at one year for the 2027-28 academic year, while the two-year requirement will be implemented starting from the 2028-29 academic year. Currently, a dependant visa or entry permit holder who was under 18 when first issued such a visa or permit is considered a local student and, therefore, can enjoy subsidised tuition fees at Hong Kong's public universities. A government spokesperson cited long-standing concerns that some students did not live in Hong Kong but applied for government-subsidised student places at universities funded by the University Grants Committee. 'To clarify the eligibility criteria for government-subsidised post-secondary student places and subsidies, and to ensure the proper use of public funds, the Education Bureau… considers it necessary for dependant children to reside in Hong Kong for two years before becoming eligible for government-subsidised post-secondary student places,' the spokesperson said in the statement. Under the new rule, to be eligible for local tuition fees, an applicant is required to provide proof that they are enrolled as a full-time student in a school offering a formal curriculum in Hong Kong for the two-year period ending on May 31 in the year in which their respective programme begins. Alternatively, they can obtain a record from the Immigration Department showing that they have not been absent from the city for a maximum of 90 days in each year of the two-year period. In addition, holders of full-time employment visas or entry permits for various admission schemes will no longer be eligible for government-subsidised post-secondary student places. Secretary for Education Christine Choi said in January that the government was reviewing the definition of 'local students' in tertiary education. The announcement came after the government issued hundreds of thousands of work visas. Expanded schemes Hong Kong introduced a new talent scheme, called the Top Talent Pass Scheme (TTPS), in late 2022 and also expanded various existing immigration programmes to attract talent to the city, following a wave of emigration from the city. With a lower threshold than other programmes, the TTPS contributes to a major share of work visas in Hong Kong. As of December 2024, the Immigration Department had approved over 270,000 work visas under various schemes over the past two years. One-third of them – or more than 90,000 visas – were TTPS visas. Three-quarters of the overall work visa holders were from mainland China, official figures showed. Under the TTPS, the share of mainland Chinese was much higher: a whopping 95 per cent. TTPS visa holders can apply for dependant visas for their spouses or unmarried children under 18 years old. A group of Hong Kong parents signed an online petition last year urging the government to review the definition of 'local students,' saying that some students did not even live in Hong Kong before applying for government-subsidised university places, local media reported.
HKFP
3 days ago
- HKFP
Same-sex partnership bill: Hong Kong's top court rulings have force of law – lawmakers should know better
At the heart of Hong Kong's success has been its reputation as a bastion of the rule of law in Asia. Yet Hong Kong's rule of law has been severely tested. In 2014-15, for 79 days, protesters occupied the city's Central district in defiance of the law, characterising their action as civil disobedience. A core characteristic of civil disobedience is breaking the law to protest a political or social cause and facing the consequences. Authorities arrested many of the protesters, especially their leaders, prosecuting and convicting them for public order offences. Officials reminded citizens of their duty to obey the law. In 2019, anti-government protesters repeatedly broke the law, breaking into and trashing the Legislative Council (LegCo) chamber, confronting and resisting police, violating public order laws, rioting, and other kinds of violence and vandalism. By 2021, authorities had arrested at least 10,000 and had charged at least 3,000 with various crimes ranging from riot to undermining national security. In its landmark policy statement made public on October 31, 2019, the Chinese Communist Party's Central Committee reminded the people of Hong Kong of their duty to obey the law and urged authorities to strengthen education in the law. Their focus was on Hong Kong's foundational documents, the Chinese Constitution and the Basic Law, Hong Kong's mini-constitution. Central and local authorities have repeatedly urged citizens to respect the law. It is the law, Chief Executive John Lee has said, and therefore must be obeyed. For example, in 2023, speaking about whether authorities would permit Tiananmen commemorations, the chief executive said: 'Everybody should act in accordance with the law and think of what they do, so as to be ready to face the consequences.' Speaking of national security, Secretary for Security Chris Tang and Secretary for Justice Paul Lam have repeatedly urged citizens to obey the law. As pointed out by Lam, Article 42 of the Basic Law reads: ''Hong Kong residents and other persons in Hong Kong shall have the obligation to abide by the laws in force in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region'. The rule of law can only exist and prevail in a society where people are willing to, and in fact, obey the law. It follows that people who breach the law should be brought to justice.' In our system, Court of Final Appeal (CFA) judgments have the force of law. To disobey the law, as the secretary for justice has pointed out, is unacceptable. It follows that citizens may not cherry-pick the law, deciding on their own which legal obligations to follow and which to ignore. It comes as a disappointment that three lawyers, all LegCo members, appear to be advocating disregarding Hong Kong's legal obligations. At issue is the government's proposal to establish a same-sex partnership recognition scheme to fulfil a top court-imposed legal obligation. The three lawyers – Priscilla Leung, Holden Chow, and Junius Ho – have all denounced a government bill that would meet the court's requirements and are actively campaigning against it. They propose no alternative. Other lawmakers appear to have noticed the hypocrisy. For example, LegCo member Edmund Wong asked whether LegCo would be framed as 'not respecting the rule of law' if it rejected the bill. Simply put, yes. What message does this send? May citizens decide on their own which legal obligations to obey? How can it be right to obey legal obligations generally but to disobey others based on some personal considerations? What if each citizen followed this example? The consequences would be chaos. The Basic Law requires that LegCo consider the government's proposal, and so it should. But are they up to the job? Consider the comments of lawmaker Erik Yim, who declared that if the government's proposal became law, 'after completing registration, the same-sex couples might hold bouquets and even wear wedding gowns [at the registration office], taking pictures and sharing them on social media. This may give society a sense of de facto marriage.' Mr Yim should realise that we already celebrate overseas marriages in Hong Kong. I am attending a same-sex couple's wedding banquet in Hong Kong next month. We hold bouquets, we wear wedding attire, we take pictures and share them on social media. The sky has not fallen. Are all LegCo members well enough informed to pass judgement on this issue? I don't understand. Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Erick Tsang has urged LegCo members to be 'rational, balanced and pragmatic.' Let's hope his advice prevails. We're supposed to have an executive-led system. Where is it? To the government's credit, authorities recognise that even if LegCo rejects the bill, the government will have an ongoing legal obligation to fulfil the CFA's ruling. And so it should.
