Lawmakers vet new national security subsidiary laws
Lawmakers vet new national security subsidiary laws
Secretary for Justice Paul Lam said officers will ask people to leave the prohibited places in the event of an inadvertent entry.
The government said on Thursday people won't violate national security laws if they simply take pictures of or go near six Office for Safeguarding National Security locations that have been declared as prohibited places this week.
The prohibition placed on the six locations took effect on Tuesday in line with new subsidiary legislation tabled under the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance.
Officials noted that under the ordinance, those who approach or inspect, enter or get close to the places with intent to endanger national security could be considered to have committed espionage, which carries a maximum jail term of 20 years.
People who inspect, enter or access the prohibited places without authorisation could also be jailed for up to two years.
At a subcommittee scrutinising the subsidiary laws by negative vetting, lawmaker Kitson Yang asked if it's a crime to take a picture of the office when people walk by.
He's also concerned that two of the prohibited places which are in Tai Kok Tsui are located next to schools, saying students may enter the places inadvertently.
DAB chairman Gary Chan added that some of the premises are "just a step next to passageways" used by the general public, saying that "people could drop a coin into the prohibited places" [and then look for it].
Security minister Chris Tang told Yang that the public need not worry about inadvertent violations of the law.
"Criminal intent is required as, for example, when one enters the area for espionage activities," he said.
"Just passing by and taking a photo doesn't constitute a criminal intent."
Tang added there are clear signs next to the banned places, and if needed, police officers can liaise with schools to explain the laws to students and teachers.
For his part, Secretary for Justice Paul Lam said the places are guarded by officers, who are empowered under the law to ask anyone to leave immediately after an inadvertent entry.
He said it would be a crime if the person ignores such an order.
Lam also explained to subcommittee chair Martin Liao why SAR authorities have extraterritorial jurisdiction only for the crime of giving false or misleading testimony or information.
He said this is an exemption clause under the subsidiary laws made in the event that a person gives false testimony in a security trial on the mainland.
The subcommittee was formed under the House Committee on Thursday morning, comprising the same 15 lawmakers who vetted the security bill under Article 23 of the Basic Law last year.
Committee chair Starry Lee said the deadline for lawmakers to propose changes to the laws is June 11, and the minimum notice period for such proposals is seven days.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South China Morning Post
14 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
Hong Kong's jury system: not an ‘unwritten law'
Across the globe, countless films depict trials in which defendants face serious charges before a jury, with suspense building until the final verdict is revealed in the last few minutes before the credits roll. A notable example is the 1985 Hong Kong film The Unwritten Law, featuring a young Andy Lau Tak-wah as a defence barrister. This classic is popular in Hong Kong, as well as among Chinese-speaking communities in Asia and beyond. Since then, numerous courtroom thrillers involving juries have been produced, many achieving success at the box office. The jury system is a common feature of many common law systems, although it has been abolished in some jurisdictions such as Singapore. Introduced in Hong Kong in 1845, the jury system has in effect been in operation for more than 175 years. Its importance and widespread acceptance are underscored by Article 86 of the Basic Law, which states: 'The principle of trial by jury previously practised in Hong Kong shall be maintained.' Juries are mainly used in criminal trials for more serious offences tried in the Court of First Instance. The essential function of a jury is to determine the relevant facts of a case from the evidence presented in court and to apply the law as directed by the judge. The judge addresses points of law and jurors assess the facts, applying their common sense and life experience to determine the truthfulness of witness testimony. The jury system allows members of the community to participate in the criminal justice process, bringing their perspectives and experiences. It also plays a pivotal role in maintaining public confidence and legitimacy in the criminal justice system, as jurors gain first-hand insight into the operation of the justice system through their participation. Of course, it must be recognised that for historical reasons – as trials in Hong Kong were conducted solely in English and the English-speaking population was relatively small – the vast majority of criminal offences in Hong Kong have been tried in the Magistrates' Court and the District Court, where there are no juries, and yet sentences can be up to seven years.
South China Morning Post
2 days ago
- South China Morning Post
Ex-mother-in-law of Hong Kong's Abby Choi accused of abusing granddaughter
The mother of murdered Hong Kong socialite Abby Choi Tin-fung has accused a former in-law of abusing her granddaughter, while insisting the woman would not have agreed to look after two of the model's children without being paid. Advertisement Cheung Yin-fa continued to testify at District Court on Tuesday as part of the trial of Choi's former mother-in-law, Jenny Li Sui-heung, for allegedly hindering a police investigation after the influencer went missing in February 2023. Li has denied a count of perverting the course of justice. Prosecutors have accused Li of urging her younger son, Alex Kwong Kong-chi, to abscond, knowing he was wanted by police for a 2015 theft case involving HK$6.3 million (US$803,200) in gold and jewellery. The 65-year-old defendant also allegedly misled police and asked Cheung to remain silent if she was approached by detectives. Advertisement Cheung, who was testifying for the prosecution, said during cross-examination that her late daughter had spent up to HK$400,000 a month on supporting her two children with Kwong, whereas he and his family never made any financial contributions towards their welfare.
HKFP
3 days ago
- HKFP
An offenders registry? National security does not need this sort of help
National security took care of herself for many decades in Hong Kong. Now it appears the poor lady is in constant peril. Or so you might think from the number of white knights galloping to her rescue. The latest is Mr Grenville Cross, who amused readers of the China Daily with an opinion piece entitled, 'Keeping tabs on released offenders lessens risks.' His concern arose after four of the famous 45 primary-election offenders recently emerged from prison. Four more have been released since, and several more will soon follow. Mr Cross, former director of public prosecutions, believes that prison is supposed to have a salutary effect on inmates. However, he worries that 'if … individuals have committed crimes against society that are politically motivated, they may also be resistant to reform.' This apparently was 'partially addressed' by the provision in the homegrown Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, the latest legislative masterpiece on this topic. Commonly known as Article 23, it states that national security offenders are not eligible for the usual early release schemes unless the commissioner for correctional services thinks they will not be a threat. New to me was the additional snippet that the commissioner is 'advised' in this matter by the Committee for Safeguarding National Security, a high-level group of law and order officials who will not, perhaps, be inhibited in their deliberations by thoughts of rehabilitation or reform. But what to do when the offender comes to the end of his or her sentence? Mr Cross goes on to note that Singapore has solved this problem with legislation empowering the home affairs minister to keep people in jail indefinitely if they are 'a threat to the public.' Oddly, we are not told, although it appears relevant, that our motherland has also solved this problem. People deemed 'a threat to the public' disappear into the detention system for years, sometimes forever. However, the UK and Hong Kong have (unlike Singapore) signed up for the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, so something like this is 'unlikely.' Thus, at the moment, there is no arrangement for monitoring national security offenders post-release. However, the UK has 'shown a possible way forward'. And where is this seductive highway to security? The Sex Offenders Register. Under this, convicted sex offenders are required to register with the police, provide addresses and other information, admit inspecting police to their homes at any time, and so on. The register can be consulted by potential employers. We could have 'a National Security Offenders Register,' Mr Cross suggests, which 'would go a long way toward neutralising any continuing threats to national security posed by offenders who have completed their sentences. It would enable the police to keep tabs on them, and the individuals concerned would know they needed to be careful.' Wow! Lots of places have registration schemes of one kind or another for sex offenders, They are particularly popular in the US. A variety of bells and whistles are commonly added to the basic requirement of an occasional visit to a police station. Actually, they are not particularly effective. Repeat offending among sexual offenders is rather rarer than for more conventional criminals. Victims of such repeat offences generally knew their partner (the vast majority of sexual offences are committed in the home) was on the register. Some critics have dismissed registers and the associated restrictions as having very little effect beyond depriving the released offender of two keys to a successful return to society: somewhere to live and a chance of employment. The whole idea is based on the questionable notion that crime can be prevented by identifying potential offenders and looking ostentatiously over their shoulders. So far as it inconveniences the released offender, it also violates the basic principle that people should be punished for what they have done, not for what they might do in future. Of course, how this will work in Hong Kong depends a lot on the details. Will the released offender be required to wear an ankle tracker, report regularly to a probation officer, and undergo weekly drug tests? Will he be forbidden to go – or live – within 1,000 yards of any police station, government office or other national security establishment? Will the offender have to register email addresses, WhatsApp numbers, any name used on the internet, their car registration, and their Octopus number? Will the register be public? Indeed, will the police, as they are in some American jurisdictions, be expected to notify the neighbours if a released offender moves in nearby? Somewhere at the bottom of this slippery slope, we may be heading for a national security equivalent of the Sexually Violent Predator Order, under which the offender who has served his sentence is shunted into a 'hospital' in which treatment is a choice but leaving is not. Anyway, this is a really bad idea. It will generate international criticism; most common law countries will take the view that a sex offender's registry is one thing and a political offender's registry is another. Domestically, Mr Cross notes that some 20 per cent of prisoners reoffend within two years of discharge. But that means 80 per cent do not. They are entitled to their freedom. And it is not as if, without some formal scheme, released national security offenders are going to disappear from view completely. Presumably, those four hotels full of national security specialists, not to mention our friendly local police force and patriotic nosy neighbours, will be looking out for signs of sin. 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.
