OP-EDS

The Hong Kong government recently declared bounties against a number of former residents now in the United Kingdom and the United States for alleged offences against the Hong Kong national security law. This prompted a strong reaction from the UK government, which considered the move to be an example of “transnational repression”.

This week, The Guardian published an interview with Chloe Cheung Hei-ching, who faces a warrant for her arrest that was issued last year. Its article portrayed her as someone fleeing political persecution for daring to criticise the Hong Kong government and advocate for democratic reform. This framing is misleading. Cheung is being charged with incitement to secession and foreign collusion.
Contrary to common misconceptions, the national security law does not criminalise political advocacy or criticism of the authorities.

The Hong Kong Basic Law stipulates in Articles 45 and 68 that universal suffrage is a political ideal for the entire city. Moreover, according to the 2024 Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, defendants can argue against the statutory offence of sedition – inherited from British colonial times – in court if they were giving “an opinion on the system or constitutional order … with a view to improving the system or constitutional order”.

However, Hong Kong’s national security laws do in fact criminalise acts of secession.

According to Article 52 of the Chinese constitution, citizens have the obligation to safeguard national unity. Article 1 of the Basic Law stipulates that Hong Kong is an “inalienable part of the People’s Republic of China”. What is more, those in the UK, in particular, should not lose sight of Article 1 of the Sino-British Joint Declaration, which states that it is the “common aspiration of the entire Chinese people” that China should resume sovereignty over Hong Kong.

Article 3 of the Joint Declaration, which set out China’s basic policies regarding Hong Kong, makes it clear that “upholding national unity and territorial integrity and taking account of the history of Hong Kong and its realities” is the reason why the city was bestowed the status of a special administrative region of China.

It follows that anyone with an intent to separate Hong Kong from the rest of China or who encourages those inciting separation is acting contrary to the Chinese constitution, the Basic Law and the Joint Declaration.

The UK has often said it has an obligation under the Joint Declaration. If so, it should ensure that Chinese sovereignty over Hong Kong is not being threatened in any way. Harbouring and speaking up on behalf of those who openly advocated for the secession of Hong Kong hardly aligns with the essence of the Joint Declaration.

Is mainland China or Hong Kong unique or unreasonable in outlawing secession? Hardly. A simple search on the internet will tell you that the United States, India, Spain and Russia, just to name a few, have legal codes or high court rulings and interpretations of their constitutions that outlaw separatism by various different legal or political means.

But most importantly, let us not conflate separatism with democratic aspirations or the right to criticise your own government. Separatism is not a universal democratic value, and the offence of secession would lead to punitive measures in many countries. Anyone with a reasonable understanding of the concept of separatism, not least the British government, should be able to appreciate the difference.

Those accused of the offence of secession under the national security law are not being charged for peaceful advocacy for democratic reform, nor for any well-intended criticism of the Hong Kong government or its policies. Some are being accused of trying to separate Hong Kong from China and inciting others to join in, participate or support such a scheme. To pretend otherwise is, as a Chinese saying goes, calling a deer a horse or, to put it bluntly, a deliberate political ploy that no respectable government should resort to.

As for putting up bounties, it is hardly unusual for fugitives suspected of serious crimes.

The British government is outraged, but on what grounds? Since secession is generally considered a political offence, and United Nations guidelines caution against extradition for political offences, the UK government should rest assured that its judges would never agree to extradite anyone accused of secession back to Hong Kong. If so, its concerns cannot be based on legal grounds.

From a political point of view, the very least the British government can do, being a signatory to the Joint Declaration, is not to be seen to support or encourage anyone advocating separatism within Hong Kong.

Instead of feigning indignation, the British government owes China and the international community an explanation as to where it stands as regards these fugitives suspected of being guilty of the offence of secession under the national security law. Perhaps it is time to call a deer a deer.

https://www.scmp.com/opinion/hong-kong-opinion/article/3321532/why-smear-hong-kongs-prosecution-secession-political-persecution?share=gmT%2F5Aiul%2Frab5p680d5ZXgUBF3H31SND5Snknc0AzQ0ZoUHHe6xSdi449rFwfUaFH5G%2FBjIATQbkHHyHRJljM9hU1zNUKv3mR%2F%2FV5tDBuE%3D&utm_campaign=social_share