The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government’s decision to revoke the passports of seven national security suspects who have fled Hong Kong and to impose financial restrictions on them is a proportionate, lawful and necessary action reaffirming that no one is above the law. These measures send a strong yet clear message: Accountability and the rule of law are paramount, and privileges such as passports must not be abused by individuals who have flagrantly disregarded their legal obligations. The individuals targeted by these actions, including Ted Hui Chi-fung and Dennis Kwok Wing-hang, are accused of serious offenses threatening national security as well as Hong Kong’s stability and public order. Instead of facing these allegations in court, they have fled abroad, actively evading justice while continuing to engage in activities that harm the city.
A passport is not an unconditional right; it is a privilege granted by the State, signifying a relationship of mutual trust and responsibility between the government and its citizens. When these individuals chose to evade justice by fleeing, they fundamentally breached this trust between them and the HKSAR government. Moreover, revoking their passports is a logical and lawful step to ensure that the fugitives cannot continue exploiting privileges while undermining the system that granted them.
The process of canceling passports is not taken lightly. It involves thoroughly reviewing the individual’s actions and the more significant implications of allowing them to retain this privilege. In this case, revocation is entirely appropriate, as it prevents these absconders from misusing their citizenship to continue avoiding accountability. If these individuals find themselves restricted in their movements because of the lack of a passport, they have only themselves to blame. Their refusal to face the charges against them has directly led to this outcome, and it is entirely fitting that they now face the consequences of their choices.
READ MORE: CE: Police to hunt down wanted fugitives by all legal means
By revoking their passports, the government upholds the principle that privileges come with responsibilities. Those who flagrantly disregard their legal obligations and actively work against the city’s stability cannot expect to retain the same rights as law-abiding residents. This measure is justified and essential for maintaining the integrity of Hong Kong’s legal and administrative systems.
In addition to revoking passports, the government has imposed financial restrictions on these individuals, including freezing their assets and prohibiting property dealings in Hong Kong. These measures are equally justified and necessary. Allowing fugitives unrestricted access to financial or property transactions within the city would not only contradict the principles of justice but could also facilitate further activities that harm Hong Kong.
Financial restrictions ensure that individuals who have disregarded the law cannot continue benefiting from the city’s resources while undermining its stability. The government has taken a precise and proportionate approach by targeting specific individuals who have demonstrably acted against Hong Kong’s interests. These measures protect Hong Kong’s broader societal interests, ensuring that public resources are not misused by individuals who have chosen to evade justice.
The suspension of professional qualifications for some of these individuals, such as Dennis Kwok Wing-hang and Kevin Yam, highlights the seriousness of their actions and the ethical responsibilities tied to their positions of trust. Lawyers are bound by a duty to uphold the rule of law and serve the public good. When individuals in such positions engage in activities that undermine the legal system, revoking their professional privileges is appropriate and essential to preserving the integrity of public institutions.
By disqualifying these individuals from practicing law or holding directorships, the government has reinforced the principle that professional qualifications carry ethical obligations. Those who act against the public good or undermine the systems they are sworn to protect cannot expect to retain their professional privileges. These actions convey that accountability applies to all, particularly those in positions of influence and responsibility.
At the core of this issue is the refusal of these individuals to return to Hong Kong and face legal proceedings. If they genuinely believe in their innocence, there is no reason for them to remain in hiding. Hong Kong’s judicial system is internationally recognized for its independence, fairness and adherence to the rule of law. The courts operate impartially, and cases are decided based on evidence and legal principles. Defendants are afforded the rights and protections necessary to ensure a fair trial.
If these individuals have a valid defense, the courts will vindicate them. Refusing to return undermines their claims of innocence and raises serious questions about their willingness to be held accountable. Their actions suggest an evasion of responsibility. Living abroad as a fugitive is neither a sustainable nor a credible position. It reduces them to a state of perpetual hiding, far removed from the society they claim to represent. If they are earnest about justice, they must return to Hong Kong and face the judicial process.
READ MORE: Criminal suspects: HK acts to protect itself from hostile forces
Critics of the SAR government’s actions have argued that these measures infringe on individual rights or represent an “overreach” of authority. Such claims fail to recognize the balance that must be struck between personal freedoms and the collective security of society. Rights, while fundamental, are not absolute; they must be exercised within the framework of the law. When individuals engage in actions that endanger public safety and undermine the rule of law, the government has both the right and the obligation to intervene. This intervention should make the public feel secure in the face of potential threats.
By revoking the passports, imposing financial restrictions on, and suspending the professional qualifications of these fugitives, who had worked against Hong Kong’s interests, the government has acted within its legal authority to address these threats. These measures serve as a deterrent to those seeking to harm Hong Kong and a reminder that the rule of law applies to all. The government's commitment to the rule of law should reassure the public of the system’s integrity.
The measures are proportionate, uphold justice, protect public order, and reinforce the principle that privileges come with responsibilities. These individuals must face the reality of their actions; justice demands it, and Hong Kong’s legal system stands ready to deliver it.
The author is a solicitor, a Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area lawyer, and a China-appointed attesting officer.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
