Hong Kong Watch publishes in-depth analysis of the business and legal risks associated with Hong Kong’s ‘Article 23’ Safeguarding National Security Ordinance

Hong Kong Watch has today published a 40-page report analysing the business and legal risks associated with the Hong Kong Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, known as ‘Article 23’, passed by the Hong Kong Legislative Council in March this year. The publication of the report follows the first round of arrests under Article 23, which involved seven individuals including barrister Chow Hang-tung for posting allegedly seditious content on social media related to the 35th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre last week.

The report, authored by Sam Goodman in his capacity as a member of Hong Kong Watch’s advisory group, provides in-depth analysis of the entire Ordinance, which is over 200 pages long and was fast-tracked through the legislative process in Hong Kong in just two weeks. Drawing on the advice and expertise of experienced legal professionals with expert knowledge of Hong Kong’s legal system, the analysis highlights the multitude of risks facing businesses, as well as to the legal profession and international NGOs and activists. 

In particular, the report highlights five aspects of the Ordinance that are most concerning. 

The first is the supremacy of national security in Hong Kong’s legal and political systems, resulting in the “Leninist legal system of the PRC” being “superimposed on Hong Kong”. This brings Hong Kong closer to the PRC’s trajectory of “securitising its economy and society”, meaning that “any notion that Hong Kong can simply switch its focus from security to the economy…will remain a fantasy as the world loses confidence in Hong Kong’s ability to serve as Asia Pacific’s top financial centre.”

The second aspect is the vague definition of “state secrets”, which would make it possible for normal business activities such as auditing, economic and financial analyses, and due diligence, to “trespass into the realm of state secrets unwittingly”.

The third is “the wide barrage of new or codified offences” which “go against the development of international jurisprudence and have unreasonably low bars for conviction”. Many of these new offences are very loosely defined.

The fourth aspect is “the continuous assault on the legal rights of Hong Kongers”, and the fifth is the increasing harassment of dissidents abroad and “the extensive powers available for transnational repression”.

The report offers eleven recommendations for foreign governments, five for foreign businesses and three for overseas Hong Kong activists. The recommendations include a call for foreign governments to update their business advisory and travel notices for Hong Kong and align them with those for Mainland China, for activists to cultivate business champions willing to speak out for a return to Hong Kong’s previous autonomy, and for foreign businesses to review their engagement strategy with the Hong Kong government, express their concerns about the new security law and update their safety guidance for their employees working in or travelling to Hong Kong, especially for those working in due diligence.

Sir Geoffrey Nice, KC, a Patron of Hong Kong Watch and former chief prosecutor in the trial of Slobodan Milosevic, said: 

“This report tells the world – not just the UK – what must be done if western values that may preserve democracy for citizens and for the businesses they run and by which they are fed are to be preserved. Accurately, it tells the world what it should already have done. Those believing in western democracy stood by watching for too long as in Hong Kong and in a war elsewhere the consequences of not being steadfast in defending what you say you value become clear. Harder now, but not impossible. Read the report. Act as it recommends.”

Benedict Rogers, co-founder and Chief Executive of Hong Kong Watch, said:

“This is a profoundly important report, written with extensive input from experienced legal experts, and we hope it will be widely read by governments, businesses, international organisations, the media, activists and the legal community worldwide. We are grateful to Sam Goodman for drawing together this analysis and for giving Hong Kong Watch the opportunity to publish it today.”

香港監察發表深入研究報告 剖析23條商業與法律風險

今天，香港監察發表一份長達40頁的報告，分析今年3月香港立法會通過的《維護國家安全條例》（俗稱「23條」）的商業和法律風險。報告發表前，香港國安處已經首次動用23條拘捕鄒幸彤等七人，指他們涉嫌發布與「六四」天安門大屠殺35週年相關的「具煽動意圖」帖文。

這份報告由香港監察顧問Sam Goodman撰寫，深入研究23條全部條文。有關條例長達200多頁，在短短兩週內便在香港快速通過了立法程序​​。報告中的分析借鑒了對香港法律制度有深入了解和經驗的法律專家的建議和專業知識，重點指出23條對企業、法律界、國際非政府組織和社運人士帶來的諸多風險。

報告特別強調了23條最令人憂慮的五個層面。

首先，國家安全在香港的法律和政治制度中至高無上，導致「中國列寧主義法律制度」被「強行施加在香港」。這使香港更接近中國「經濟和社會安全化」的軌跡，亦意味着「任何認為香港可以簡單地將重點從安全轉向經濟的想法……都將依然是幻想，因為世界對香港繼續成為亞太地區頂尖金融中心的能力已經失去信心」。

第二，23條對「國家機密」的定義模糊，令審計、經濟及財務分析和盡職調查等正常企業活動有可能「無意中墮入國家機密領域」。

第三，23條納入大量新訂或修訂罪行，「違背了國際法理學的發展，而且定罪門檻不合理地低」。當中，許多新罪行的定義非常寬鬆。

第四，23條「持續侵犯香港人的合法權利」。最後，23條提供「廣泛權力進行跨國鎮壓」，海外異見人士遭受的騷擾亦與日俱增。

這份報告提供了十一項建議予外國政府，五項建議予外國企業，以及三項建議予海外香港社運人士。這些建議包括呼籲外國政府更新對香港的商業及旅遊警示至與中國一致；呼籲社運人士培育願意為恢復香港曾經享有的自治權發聲的商業領袖；呼籲外國企業審查與香港政府的合作策略，表達對新國安法的擔憂，並更新對在香港工作或來港公幹的僱員的安全指南，特別是從事盡職調查的僱員。

香港監察贊助人、前塞爾維亞和南斯拉夫總統米洛舍維奇（Slobodan Milošević）審判前首席檢察官、英國御用大律師尼斯爵士（Sir Geoffrey Nice）表示：

「這份報告向世界──不僅是英國──說明我們必須採取甚麼行動，才能維護那些能夠為公民和企業保護民主的西方價值觀。準確地說，它告訴世界我們早就應已採取的行動。那些相信西方民主的人對香港及其他戰亂地區袖手旁觀太久了，如果我們不堅定地捍衛我們聲稱自己珍視的東西，後果顯而易見。現在處境更加困難，但並非絕無可能。閱讀這份報告，並按其建議行事吧。」

香港監察共同創辦人兼行政總監羅傑斯（Benedict Rogers）表示：

「這份報告極其重要，吸納了由經驗豐富的法律專家提供的大量意見。我們希望世界各地的政府、企業、國際組織、媒體、社運人士和法律界能夠廣泛閱讀。我們感謝Sam Goodman整合這份分析報告，並給予香港監察機會發表。」