The Hong Kong Police Force recently published data detailing all reported crimes from the past year. One detail that may have gone unnoticed is that, following the implementation of the National Security Law for Hong Kong (NSL) in June 2020, and the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance (SNSO), a total of 316 individuals had been arrested by the National Security Department of the Police Force by the end of December 2024, or over a period of four and a half years.
Notably, about 60 percent of these individuals have been prosecuted. However, the Police Force pointed out that of the 60 percent, fewer than 100 were actually accused of violating relevant offenses under the two national security laws; the remainder were mainly charged with crimes relating to public safety. Of the fewer than 100 accused of offending against national security, 47 were involved in the infamous case of “conspiracy to subvert the State power” under the pretense of holding a “primary election”, with the remainder (fewer than 50) involved in other cases of national security offense.
While fewer than 100 individuals is not an insignificant number, it starkly contrasts with claims made by some Western politicians and media outlets that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government would broadly and extensively use the national security laws to arrest and imprison dissidents. In the eyes of certain Western politicians and media outlets, the term “dissidents” signifies people persecuted for their differing political views. However, the reality is that neither of the two national security laws includes any provisions that classify holding different political opinions as a crime. Instead, under these laws, only two offenses do not require an element of violence or illegal activity: “secession” and “collusion with a foreign country or with external elements to endanger national security”.
Dissent is not an element of crime
First, let us look at “secession”. Article 20 of the NSL explicitly states that anyone who organizes, plans, commits, or participates in acts aimed at undermining national unification — regardless of whether such acts involve force or the threat of force — shall be deemed guilty. As to “collusion with a foreign country or external elements to endanger national security”, Article 29 of the NSL clearly defines it as a crime to steal, spy, obtain information through payment, or unlawfully provide State secrets or intelligence related to national security to a foreign country or institution; or to request foreign or external institutions, organizations, or individuals to wage war against the People’s Republic of China or impose sanctions or blockade or engage in hostile activities against the Hong Kong SAR.
Upholding national security is a shared responsibility that requires vigilance not only by the police but also by society as a whole; this is true the world over, but we must equally be vigilant and draw the line between what conduct constitutes an offense and what does not. We firmly believe, in this respect, our national security legislation is not significantly different from similar laws in other jurisdictions, and that the existence of these laws is solely necessary to safeguard national security. They have nothing to do with silencing dissent
It will not be lost on those reading these provisions to see that holding any particular political view is not an element of a crime; only specific conduct plainly harming the national security of China will be so regarded. Dissenting views will not land anyone in jail, and it is also difficult to see how anyone could “accidentally” commit these crimes. The requisite conduct constituting these crimes involves specific intentions and consequential conduct to divide the country or to seek foreign intervention to harm national security. Merely holding a particular view will not.
It is thus difficult to see how anyone rationally looking at these provisions can honestly say that this legislation would be used to stifle or suppress dissent, let alone round up people and put them in jail. All trials in Hong Kong are open. All judgments delivered by the courts are reasoned and available for all to scrutinize. No one has identified any decision that suggests Hong Kong’s courts are acting capriciously or as a political tool. Furthermore, we have a free press that can openly discuss or even criticize these decisions for all to see. So where is the evidence that this legislation is anything but a necessary and reasonable measure to safeguard national security, as it would be in any other country?
Foreign smears fall flat
Another important fact is that the SAR government has not arrested individuals with differing opinions in response to the implementation of the national security laws. What we have observed is that the vast majority of those prosecuted are related to the 2019-20 unrest. In other words, there are currently no signs of any new political flashpoint unrelated to the events of 2019-20. This fact is crucial and serves as the foundation for a stable and prosperous society. However, this does not mean we can afford to relax or become complacent; on the contrary, it underscores that addressing the social fractures caused by the 2019-20 turmoil and ensuring Hong Kong’s continued prosperity and stability must remain the government’s primary focus moving forward.
Addressing the false claims and unreasonable criticisms from Western political leaders and the media is another significant priority. The facts are clear: The information and data recently released by the police regarding law enforcement since the implementation of the NSL speaks volumes as to the true state of the enforcement of the two national security laws, which plainly shows criticisms and accusations favored by the West are wholly baseless and not supported by facts. Upholding national security is a shared responsibility that requires vigilance not only by the police but also by society as a whole; this is true the world over, but we must equally be vigilant and draw the line between what conduct constitutes an offense and what does not. We firmly believe, in this respect, our national security legislation is not significantly different from similar laws in other jurisdictions, and that the existence of these laws is solely necessary to safeguard national security. They have nothing to do with silencing dissent.
The author is a former chairman of the Hong Kong Bar Association, a member of the Executive Council, and convener of the Path of Democracy.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
