HONG KONG (AP) — At first glance, life in Hong Kong after a broad new national security law recently entered into force appears unchanged.
A Security Act 2020 drew thousands of protesters to the streets when it took effect. This is now considered too risky. There were no headlines arrested this time. There were no searches in the editorial office.
Instead, there is a deeper, quieter wave of adaptation among Hong Kong residents living under the threat of wider restrictions after Ordinance for guaranteeing national security entered into force on March 23.
At an immigration expo during the first two days of the law, immigration consultant Ben Lee’s booth was constantly occupied, his small white tables occupied. Inquiries for moving abroad jumped by around 40% compared to last year’s show. More than half of those asked cited the new ordinance, known locally as Art. 23as a reason to consider emigration.
“The Article 23 legislation has brought about a significant catalytic effect,” Li said.
China promised to keep Hong Kong’s relative freedom and way of life unchanged for 50 years when Britain handed over control of its former colony to communist-ruled Beijing in 1997. These Western-style civil liberties, such as freedom of speech and a free press , were the cornerstones of the city’s status as an international financial center.
But since the law of 2020 was imposed by Beijing after months of anti-government protests, they have been sharply curtailed. Many pro-democracy activists have been arrested, silenced or forced into exile. There were dozens of civil society groups dissolved. Outspoken media like Apple Daily and Stand News were turn off. Many disillusioned young professionals and middle-class families have emigrated to Britain, Canada and Taiwan.
Hong Kong’s Basic Law, or constitution, requires the city to pass a national security law, but for 27 years the Legislative Council has not passed one, with widespread opposition to an earlier attempt to pass such a law in 2003. The Hong Kong government claims , that the law is needed to prevent a repeat of the violent protests of 2019. It says the law balances national security with protecting liberties.
Still, many fear running afoul of the law – which targets conspiring with “foreign powers” to threaten security, illegally disclose state secrets, sabotage and espionage, among others. Serious acts such as treason and rebellion are punishable by life imprisonment. Some provisions allow criminal prosecution for acts committed anywhere in the world.
Faced with these risks, some people have chosen to play it safe.
An independent bookshop owner said she had pulled around 30 books from the shelves, fearing she could be accused of distributing seditious material. The headlines were about the 2019 protests, Tibet and Xinjiang, increasingly politically sensitive topics in mainland China. Books will be trashed.
The owner, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of government retribution, said they removed the books because of tougher provisions of the new law, which allows police to seek court approval to extend the detention of suspects without charge and ban suspects from consultations with certain lawyers. The bookseller was worried that he would not have a fair trial if he was charged.
“Too bad,” said the bookseller. “This is an unnecessary attack on freedom of speech.
Under the law, sedition offenses carry a sentence of up to seven years, or 10 years if a person is convicted of working with foreign governments or organizations to carry out the activities. The government says criticism aimed at improving its policies will not be prosecuted, but there has been less leeway for public dissent since the 2020 law came into effect.
The League of Social Democrats, one of Hong Kong’s few remaining pro-democracy parties, will be more careful about its advertising materials to avoid being seen as seditious, its chairman Chan Po-ying said.
“When things are uncertain, everyone would worry,” she said.
John Burns, professor emeritus of politics and public administration at the University of Hong Kong, said residents are adopting coping strategies seen in mainland China, avoiding expressing opinions that could cause them trouble. But Hong Kong still has more room for dissent than the mainland, he said.
“So caution is the rule,” he said.
Days after the law went into effect, the US-funded newsletter Radio Free Asia announced it was closing its Hong Kong office due to safety concerns under the new law and pointed to criticism from authorities. It was another narrowing of the space for press freedom at a time when local journalists are struggling to adapt to potential new risks.
Ronson Chan, an editor at online media Channel C HK, personally handles sensitive stories to minimize risks to his colleagues due to the broader scope of the State Secrets Act definition. The definition echoes that used in mainland China, which covers economic, social and technological development and criminal investigations, outside the traditional areas of national security.
The law is also causing adjustments in the legal and business communities.
Dominic Chiu, a senior analyst at Eurasia Group, said some companies, including law firms, have already taken precautions to limit their Hong Kong staff’s access to their global databases. This may not involve a “complete ban” but instead may require special approval to access files of foreign clients, he said.
These steps, taken even before the first draft of the new law was published, were prompted by the belief that Hong Kong would eventually bring its data security policies in line with those of mainland China. So the companies aligned their data policies with those of mainland China, Chiu said.
Banks and technology companies have not yet made plans to leave Hong Kong, said George Chen, Hong Kong-based managing director of The Asia Group, a Washington-based business and consulting firm. After all, many of them work in other Chinese cities. But some companies are internally reviewing whether some sensitive roles, such as those that handle user data, should be moved elsewhere, he said.
In an emailed response to questions from The Associated Press, the government said it strongly condemned “all scaremongering and defamatory remarks” about the law. It said other countries have similar laws and that the law simply improves Hong Kong’s legal framework to protect national security, thereby creating a more stable business environment.
“To single out Hong Kong and suggest that journalists and businesses will only have concerns when working here but not elsewhere would be grossly biased, if not outrageous,” it said.
Officials say the law targets only an “extremely small minority of people” who pose a security threat, similar to what mainland Chinese officials say about Beijing’s own expanding national security safeguards.
George Chen would like to hear less on the subject.
“Hong Kong has been through a lot in the past few years, and now we hear more and more customers saying to us – can Hong Kong move forward?” Chen said. “Let’s talk less about national security every day and focus more on the real economy and business.”
___
Associated Press writer Zen Su contributed to this report.
