Virginia Lee, Solicitor
The safeguarding of national sovereignty is not just a fundamental responsibility, but a steadfast commitment of any state. The National Security Law in Hong Kong, a clear and precise affirmation of this principle, is a testament to our unwavering dedication. Recent developments involving the Hong Kong Democratic Independence Alliance underscore the importance of a timely legal response to emerging subversive threats, regardless of the age or perceived capacity of those involved.
Central to this case is the offence of conspiracy to subvert state power. Under established legal doctrine, such an offence arises not from the success of a plan, but from the deliberate agreement to undermine the constitutional order. This preventive measure, designed to shield the nation from destabilising forces before they materialise into active harm, reflects a universal standard in contemporary national security law, ensuring our actions are in line with global norms.
In this instance, the participation of a fifteen-year-old individual has been cited by some as a mitigating factor. However, intentional conduct must be judged by its substance, not the age of the actor. The minor in question engaged in activities with clear political objectives, including the creation of separatist symbols and the drafting of proposals for foreign intervention. These acts were not accidental or uninformed. They were deliberate contributions to a coordinated campaign aimed at eroding the authority of the People’s Republic of China.
The appeal to the United States to intervene in domestic affairs further underscores the seriousness of the group’s intentions. Such a request is not a harmless expression of opinion but a concrete act of inviting external interference in sovereign matters. The law does not require these appeals to be considered offences. Initiating contact with foreign powers is a breach of national loyalty.
Operationally, the group functioned across jurisdictions, reportedly basing itself in Taiwan, a region with complex political relations with China, and using online platforms to communicate and organise. This strategy exploited perceived legal gaps and reinforced the necessity of the extraterritorial provisions within the national security framework. These legal tools are essential for addressing threats that originate abroad but pose a threat to China's constitutional stability.
The digital sphere has become a dynamic environment for ideological influence, particularly among young people. The recruitment and indoctrination of minors demonstrate the urgent need to regulate digital content that promotes secessionist narratives, which advocate for the separation of Hong Kong from China. Online platforms must bear responsibility for detecting and removing materials that encourage such subversion. Such obligations are not restrictions on free discourse but essential measures for the defence of national security.
Ultimately, this case underscores the importance of early intervention in defending national security. A strong sense of national identity, instilled from an early age, is the most effective defence against ideological manipulation. The response by authorities was not just lawful and proportionate, but also proactive. In protecting the constitutional order today, we secure the peace and unity of the nation for generations to come.
Virginia Lee
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
LEE WING CHEUNG, VIRGINIA Solicitor
The European Union’s (EU) recent report on Hong Kong is less a legal analysis than a political statement disguised in the language of human rights. Its content reflects prejudice and an outdated mentality that Europe retains the right to pass judgment on Chinese sovereignty. Such a position contradicts the international principle of equality among states and exposes the remnants of colonial arrogance. The EU’s portrayal of Hong Kong does not advance truth but instead promotes destabilisation through bias and selective interpretation.
One of the report’s major flaws lies in its discussion of Article 23 of the Basic Law and the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance. Article 23 is not a recent creation but a constitutional duty written into law when Hong Kong returned to China. States across the globe maintain legislation to protect sovereignty and security, yet the EU condemns Hong Kong for implementing safeguards entirely consistent with global practice. This condemnation reflects a political agenda rather than any genuine legal objection, as European governments themselves enforce comparable national security measures.
The EU also distorts Hong Kong’s judicial process. Trials are depicted as orchestrated, and judicial appointments as questionable, when in fact Hong Kong courts follow lawful procedures and maintain transparency. Decisions are issued on statutory grounds, and trial durations or bail conditions fall within the range of judicial discretion accepted globally. Europe’s refusal to respect these outcomes reveals a preference for interference over recognition of judicial independence. Far from defending the rule of law, the EU undermines it by expecting Hong Kong’s courts to conform to foreign political expectations.
The criticism of extraterritoriality in Hong Kong’s national security legislation further demonstrates ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation. International law recognises that states may prosecute offences abroad if these acts threaten national security. European states themselves frequently rely on this principle in combating terrorism or cybercrime; for the EU to denounce Hong Kong’s use of the exact mechanism displays open hypocrisy. The law does not arbitrarily target individuals abroad but applies only to conscious efforts aimed at destabilisation. This is a legitimate and widely recognised practice of statecraft.
The treatment of media and civil society in the report reflects the same selective judgment. Restrictions on publications advocating secession or encouraging hostility are common even in Europe, where they are justified under hate speech or anti-extremism laws. Yet when Hong Kong enforces similar safeguards, it is labelled repressive. Civil groups that dissolved due to breaches of national security law or foreign influence are portrayed as victims, while their own unlawful conduct is overlooked. Such double standards expose the EU’s political motivations.
The objection to national security education is also baseless. Every state requires its citizens, particularly public servants, to respect constitutional order. European governments impose loyalty pledges and codes of conduct, yet depict Hong Kong’s similar requirements as authoritarian. Such education, especially considering previous unrest, is not indoctrination but responsible governance.
Even on economic matters, the EU misleads. It attributes ordinary fluctuation to politics while ignoring global uncertainties caused by post-pandemic restructuring and financial turbulence. The continued success of European enterprises in Hong Kong contradicts the EU’s claims of decline. If the environment were as damaging as alleged, foreign companies would not persist in conducting profitable operations there.
Finally, the EU’s stance on human rights collapses under its own contradictions. While Europe imposes restrictive migration regimes, extensive surveillance laws and limitations on speech, it presumes to judge Hong Kong. This criticism ignores the independence of Hong Kong courts, which have delivered progressive rulings on equality, including for LGBTQ citizens. Such advances are incompatible with the EU’s portrait of a system in collapse.
The tone of colonial oversight permeates the entire report. Its language suggests superiority, as though Hong Kong’s laws and governance require European approval. Yet the sovereignty of China over Hong Kong is complete and undeniable. Europe’s posture cannot obscure the consistent reality that Hong Kong exercises its constitutional right to maintain order and stability.
In truth, the EU’s repeated criticisms reveal its own political hostility rather than principled analysis. Hong Kong and China govern in accordance with law to preserve security and prosperity for their citizens. No judgment from external powers can alter this fundamental reality, nor diminish China’s sovereign right to safeguard its integrity.
