Secretary for Justice Addresses AI Governance and Accountability at High-Level Forum

Speech by SJ at High-Level Forum on Generative AI Governance and Cultural Co-Creation

Following is the speech by the Secretary for Justice, Mr Paul Lam, SC, at the High-Level Forum on Generative AI (Gen AI) Governance and Cultural Co-Creation today (October 30):

Provost Professor Guo (Provost of the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Professor Guo Yike), Professor Song (Director, Media Intelligence Research Center of the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Professor Celine Song), distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen,

A very good afternoon. It is a great pleasure to address this assembly of distinguished scholars and industry leaders and kick off the panel discussion on "Credibility and Accountability in the Era of Generative AI".

The choice of topic is most timely as the Chief Executive just announced last month in this year's Policy Address that the Department of Justice will form an interdepartmental working group to co-ordinate the responsible bureaux to review the legislation needed to complement the wider application of artificial intelligence. This raises an important question: why is there an imminent need for such a review of legislation?

While providing convenience and enhancing efficiency, AI, as we all know, is also open to abuse and sometimes, even with the best of intentions, may be misused. Here comes the question of credibility and accountability.

Currently, Hong Kong has no bespoke legislation governing AI. To harness the potential benefits this new technology may bring, it is incumbent upon the Government to take the lead in reviewing the relevant law so as to provide a facilitative yet properly controlled legal environment for AI's development. This is not easy as it requires us to strike a balance, even if it is going to be a fine balance, between the need to encourage and promote innovation and technology development on the one hand, and that to ensure credibility and accountability in the use of AI on the other hand. This balancing exercise is highly relevant to the rule of law. Let me explain why.

There are many attempts to identify and articulate what should be regarded as the core or fundamental principles of the rule of law. This is how I would encapsulate the concept: there must be the existence of laws and regulations which can be enforced effectively to govern human activities so as to ensure that such activities will be conducted in a fair and proper manner, without causing any harm to or prejudicing the rights of others. To uphold this principle, it is essential for our legal framework to evolve in a timely manner to protect the legitimate rights and interests of different stakeholders affected by the use of AI.

I now wish to underscore five issues which are non-exhaustive concerning the credibility and accountability in relation to the use of AI.

First, AI-generated content depends on the dataset on which the AI tool is trained and the information uploaded to it to obtain a response. A reliable dataset and machine learning may involve the use of copyrighted materials. This raises questions on whether the current copyright law can tackle new issues involving the relative rights and liabilities among copyright owners, generative AI providers and its users, such as the use of copyrighted materials without authorisation and ownership of AI-generated work.

Second, as the saying goes, "Garbage in, garbage out." Sometimes, AI may generate false or inaccurate content due to the incomplete or flawed information uploaded. Recently, the High Court of England and Wales has also warned that GenAI can produce apparently coherent and plausible but in fact entirely incorrect responses to prompts, make confident but untrue assertions, cite sources that do not exist.

Third, deepfakes generated by AI may present substantial risks by producing highly realistic but in fact fake audio and visual content. The complaint against a law student using AI to create over 700 pornographic female images is telling. The implication is that, among other things, in any process of evidence-based inquiries, what appears to be very compelling may in fact be fabricated.

Fourth, Professor Cecilia Chan, an education academic, has recently said that the rapid advancement of GenAI presents a serious threat to higher education, particularly with the emergence of the so-called "AI-giarism", i.e. the misuse of AI tools by students and researchers to present AI-generated work as their own. In the long run, it may risk eroding an individual's critical thinking skills in reasoning through the questioning of assumptions and the evaluation of information before reaching independent judgement.

Fifth, UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund) expresses concern that AI may pose risks to children as it can instantly create persuasive disinformation, as well as harmful and illegal content. AI may also influence children's perceptions and attributions of intelligence, cognitive development, and social behaviour as it blurs the line between animate and inanimate, given the human-like tone of chatbots. Even for mature and seasoned decision-makers, reliance on AI may risk systemic discrimination which reinforces existing biases or even amplify inequalities, prejudices and stereotyping.

The Government has already been putting in much effort to tackle these issues. On the intellectual property front, the Government is introducing, among other things, a new "text and data mining exception" in the Copyright Ordinance (Cap 528), which would allow copyright users to make copies of copyright works for computational data analysis and processing, without a licence from copyright owners.

We also see over time the issuance of guidelines from different quarters. Examples include "Guidelines on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence for Judges and Judicial Officers and Support Staff of the Hong Kong Judiciary", "Hong Kong Generative Artificial Intelligence Technical and Application Guideline" issued by the Government's Digital Policy Office and those from local universities.

While these guidelines are flexible and sector-specific, they do not have the force of law. Whether they are sufficient and effective to address the above-mentioned issues is yet to be seen and requires further study. In any event, proper co-ordination and overall supervision may well be required to prevent and reconcile possible inconsistent or even conflicting measures on the same or similar issues.

What is happening elsewhere?

On the Chinese Mainland, the "Interim Measures for the Administration of Generative Artificial Intelligence Services", jointly issued by the Cyberspace Administration of China and other authorities, took effect in August 2023. GenAI service providers must now, for example, take effective measures to make GenAI services more transparent and AI-generated content more accurate and reliable, protect users' inputted information and use records, and label AI-generated content. Service providers will be punished by the supervising authorities for violation after inspection. Under a departmental regulatory document effective in September 2025, service providers who provide text generation or editing services conducted through simulation of natural persons, etc, shall add explicit labels to AI-generated or synthesised content.

The European Artificial Intelligence Act, binding and directly applicable in all EU (European Union) member states, commenced in August 2024, with its requirements applying incrementally. Certain requirements on credibility and accountability will start on August 2 next year and providers of GenAI systems shall ensure that systems' outputs are marked in a machine-readable format and detectable as AI-generated or manipulated. Subject to some exceptions, deployers of an AI system that generates or manipulates content constituting a deepfake, shall disclose that the content has been artificially generated or manipulated.

Most recently, in Italy, Law No. 132/2025 just took effect on October 10, 2025. This is the first domestic law in the European Union on the use of AI. The fundamental principles underpinning the legal framework governing the use of AI in different sectors, including healthcare, employment, professional services, and intellectual property, are transparency, proportionality, security, protection of data, accountability, gender equality and non-discrimination. That Law also seeks to combat crimes committed with AI support. The unlawful dissemination of AI-generated or altered content e.g. deepfake is a standalone offence, whereas market manipulation offences committed through AI are subject to increased penalties. To protect minors, children under the age of 14 may use AI only with their parents' consent.

For us, Hong Kong must of course design its own approach based on its own circumstances. This requires collective wisdom from all sectors. With this in mind, the Government will engage with all relevant stakeholders to build a legal framework to promote AI in a way which is reasonably flexible to cater for its fast development and wide application, but without compromising the rule of law.

That's why as I have mentioned over lunch during my discussion with Professor Song, I am very excited at the establishment of the new centre. One of the focuses of the centre concerns AI governance and I certainly look forward to more collaborations between the Department of Justice, or perhaps the HKSAR Government as a whole, and the centre and, of course, the university. Indeed, more stakeholders will share common interest in this very important area.

Before I conclude, I would like to take the opportunity to mention another very important thing. I would like to invite you to exercise your right to vote in the upcoming Legislative Council General Election on December 7. Your active participation is not merely an exercise of an extremely valuable and important constitutional right. Your active participation will also make a very impactful decision on the future well-being of our society. On this note, I wish you a fruitful, meaningful and enjoyable discussion and exchanges this afternoon.

Thank you very much.

Source: AI-found images

Speech by SJ at High-Level Forum on Generative AI Governance and Cultural Co-Creation Source: HKSAR Government Press Releases

Source: AI-found images

Remarks by S for S at media session after Fight Crime Committee meeting (with video)

Following are the remarks by the Secretary for Security, Mr Tang Ping-keung, at a media session after the Fight Crime Committee meeting at the Central Government Offices, Tamar today (November 5):

Reporter: What do you make of the sentencing of Joshua Wong, and what are your thoughts towards comments made by overseas governments as well as groups towards Joshua Wong's sentencing?

Secretary for Security: Regarding the case concerning Wong Chi-fung involving the offence of "conspiracy to commit collusion with foreign countries or with external elements to endanger national security", following his earlier guilty plea, the Court of First Instance of the High Court delivered the sentence this morning. Wong was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment, and the court ruled that the case fell within the category of an offence of a "grave nature" and warrants severe punishment.

Wong, together with Law Kwun-chung, who has been specified as an absconder, and their accomplices are among the primary culprits responsible for undermining Hong Kong's prosperity and stability. They began by obstructing the Government's effort to promote national education in an attempt to weaken national identity. Wong, in particular, has repeatedly broken the law, including illegal assemblies and contempt of court, demonstrating his complete disregard for the rule of law.

Since before the implementation of the HKNSL (Hong Kong National Security Law), Wong and others colluded with foreign or external forces, actively lobbied the United States to pass so-called legislation concerning Hong Kong, and openly solicited foreign sanctions.

Following the enactment of the HKNSL, they continued to conspire and collude with external forces. The reasons for sentence handed down by the court ruled that the offence in this case was of a "grave nature", and pointed out that at the material time, Hong Kong was confronted with social turmoil and the serious effects of riots, and was facing very high risks to national security and the rule of law. They had direct engagement with top or senior officials of foreign countries, and continued to promote the calls for sanctions through their own social media accounts and via prominent news media or outlets in the West, reaching both local and international audiences.

The court remarked that Wong Chi-fung and Law Kwun-chung were the masterminds of the case, and they advocated at the forefront, calling for foreign countries to impose sanctions and hostile measures. After the implementation of the HKNSL, they persisted in acts endangering national security and deliberately adapted their respective roles, yet their roles were equally crucial. They indeed contributed to the imposition of sanctions and hostile measures by foreign countries, and such sanctions and measures significantly impacted upon and endangered national security.

The Court also said that it is necessary to express the community's contempt for the defendant's scheme and acts, together with others, to collude with foreign forces, and to serve the imperative of deterrence.

I note that since the sentence of Wong, external forces have launched malicious attacks and smears regarding the present case. Those launching attacks against us are exactly the same external forces that Wong Chi-fung and Law Kwun-chung attempted to collude with, whom they beg for mercy and lean on that day. They must be strongly condemned, and Hong Kong citizens must recognise and acknowledge that clearly.

In fact, Wong pleaded guilty, and Wong was sentenced through fair and open judicial proceedings and fully demonstrated the rule of law that the courts of the HKSAR (Hong Kong Special Administrative Region) have consistently upheld. It is the constitutional duty of the HKSAR Government to safeguard national security, and the Government is determined and will continue to resolutely combat those actions that endanger national security.

Regarding the sentence of 10 years' imprisonment, in fact, the court has confirmed that it's a category of an offence of a "grave nature", and a sentence of 10 years has reflected the severe nature of that act. We will discuss with the Department of Justice to see if there's any need for a review of the sentence. Thank you.

(Please also refer to the Chinese portion of the remarks.)

Source: AI-found images