Weaponising Rumours to Wreck Hong Kong’s Election is a Criminal Offence

As the election day gets closer, the volume from the rumour mill and smear campaigns is clearly being turned up.

Among the latest claims doing the rounds is a story that a company is paying HK$150 per head to “hire voters” for the Legislative Council election on December 7,  and even demanding they take photos as proof after casting their ballots, which has triggered a wave of anti-government comments online.

In response, the Office for Safeguarding National Security of the CPG in the HKSAR has issued its third statement on the matter, stressing that certain people inside and outside Hong Kong keep changing tactics in order to smear the Legislative Council election.

A spokesperson for the Office pointed out that some anti‑China, destablising-Hong Kong elements and internal forces have not abandoned their malicious intentions or wicked ambitions,  and are still openly and covertly inciting people to boycott the election and stirring up disruptive activities both online and offline.

The Office has made clear it will take a zero‑tolerance approach in defending national security and, in accordance with the law, will severely punish any acts or activities that interfere with or sabotage the election and endanger national security.

Looking carefully at the online posts, it is obvious that the National Security Office’s statement hits the target.

Take the above‑mentioned post about so‑called “paid voting”, offering HK$150 per person to get people to vote and then take a photo as evidence – its source was unclear and the whole setup was already rather bizarre from the start.

Twisting “Paid Voting” Into a Weapon

When the media asked the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) about this, its spokesperson explained that the activity was purely to promote the election, without inducing voters to vote or not vote for particular candidates, and therefore it is not restricted by the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance.

At the same time, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data reminded the public to first find out the purpose of any data collection and to pay attention to whether the related information is genuine.

Yet on the forums where this piece of news was reposted, some comments seized the chance to add fuel to the fire and attack the government, while others simply fabricated rumours.

One example was a comment claiming that “According to Section 11 of the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance, any person who, without reasonable excuse, offers a benefit to another person to induce or reward that person or a third party to vote or not to vote in an election commits an offence.”

As soon as this post appeared, it encouraged many people to rush out and condemn the government and the ICAC, arguing that since the ordinance “clearly” bans offering benefits to induce others to vote, how could the ICAC possibly say that encouraging voting is not restricted by the law.

However, simply checking Section 11 of the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance is enough to show that its content is completely different from what the commenter wrote.

Section 11 targets corrupt conduct involving bribery of voters or others in an election, and makes it an offence for any person, without reasonable excuse, to offer a benefit to another person as an inducement for that person to vote for a particular candidate.

When Fake Law Becomes a Political Tool

In reality, Section 11 is about “offers an advantage to another person as an inducement to vote at the election for a particular candidate or particular candidates”, not “offering a benefit to another person to vote” in general.

The commenter deliberately rewrote the law, changing its original ban on offering benefits to get people “to vote for a particular candidate” into a supposed ban on offering benefits just to get people “to vote”, which is an obvious attempt to manufacture a rumour.

That comment then triggered a flood of insults against the ICAC.

In fact, this kind of deliberate fabrication of legal content is already suspected of breaching the offence of seditious intention under Article 24 of the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance.

Article 24 makes clear that a seditious intention includes the intention to incite hatred or contempt against the executive, legislative or judicial authorities of the HKSAR.

By inventing the content of the ordinance and then accusing the ICAC of failing to enforce the law, the commenter stirs up hatred against the ICAC and is therefore suspected of committing the offence of seditious intention.

Are the flood of specious messages appearing online, the doctored legal provisions and the calls to hate the government and to refuse to vote on December 7 just casual off‑the‑cuff remarks, or are they deliberate acts of incitement?

Don’t Play With Legal Fire Online

Even if an ordinary person wanted to criticise the government, it is unlikely they would spend the time and effort to rewrite the content of the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance, which makes this behaviour particularly suspicious.

Now that the National Security Office has spoken out in advance and warned that it will, in accordance with the law, severely punish all acts intended to interfere with or sabotage the election, this already serves as a serious and timely warning.

These individuals are intentionally spreading false information aimed squarely at the election, and it is highly likely that the posters or commenters are not physically in Hong Kong.

They maliciously attack the city’s system while confidently assuming the government will find it hard to hold them to account.

The real problem is that if any people in Hong Kong foolishly forward such content online, and even call on others to attack the government or boycott the election by refusing to vote, they can very easily end up breaking the law.

Clearly, attempts to attack Hong Kong’s election are no simple matter, and others should not casually chime in and “test the law by themselves”.

Lo Wing-hung

Bastille Commentary

** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **

The US war against Iran has dragged on for over half a month. Trump has clearly miscalculated.

The US's greatest success came on February 28, the first day of the war, when it killed Iran's supreme leader Khamenei. But as the conflict unfolded, it has gradually shifted into a situation unfavorable for the US.

First, it failed to trigger regime change.

Trump was convinced Iran was just like Venezuela, riddled with internal fractures. After Venezuelan leader Maduro was captured by US invasion, interim president Rodríguez immediately reached an agreement with the US and restored diplomatic relations. Trump fully expected that after killing Khamenei, he could push Iran to install a pro-American regime. But Iran held firm and re-elected Khamenei's son Mojtaba as supreme leader.


Khamenei was actually a civilian by background and had served as Iran's president, whereas his son Mojtaba fought in the Iran-Iraq War in his youth, served in the elite volunteer corps of the Revolutionary Guards, and was subsequently viewed as a representative of the hardline pro-Revolutionary Guards faction within the regime—likely even more hardline than Khamenei. The US ended up pushing Iran to install an even more anti-American regime.


Second, the situation spiraled out of control.


Everyone expected the US-Iran conflict to mirror the 1991 Gulf War against Iraq, where the US deployed six aircraft carrier battle groups to saturate the Persian Gulf and Red Sea with attacks, systematically destroying Iraqi air defenses and counterattack capabilities before wrapping up the war quickly.

This time, however, played out entirely differently—the US performed poorly.

The USS Lincoln carrier battle group reportedly closed to within 346 kilometers of Iran before coming under attack. Iran fired four anti-ship missiles and four cruise missiles at the Lincoln. Iran claimed the carrier was damaged; the US denied it, but observers watched the Lincoln retreat steadily away from the Persian Gulf.

When the US deployed the USS Ford carrier battle group as backup, it too kept its distance from Iran. Iran declared that within its territorial waters and 700 kilometers of its coastline, not a single US warship remained—evidence, Iran argued, that the US feared Iranian missile strikes.


The damage extended further. Iran claimed it had destroyed four THAAD air defense systems at separate US military bases across the Middle East, plus one ground-based Pave Paws regional radar. Only eight THAAD systems exist globally—the only systems capable of intercepting missiles both inside and outside the atmosphere—and Iran eliminated four in one strike. Only seven Pave Paws regional radar systems exist worldwide; Iran took out one. The military achievement was staggering. The US urgently withdrew one THAAD system and Patriot missiles from South Korea to reinforce the Middle East.


US combat losses were unprecedented. Iran had never struck the US with this intensity before, exposing Trump's miscalculation: he believed Iran lacked the capability to retaliate effectively. Whether Iran had been holding back or simply unwilling to escalate further to preserve negotiating room remains unclear, but the US miscalculation proved costly.


Most US radar systems in the region were destroyed, leaving American forces essentially half-blind across the Middle East. US military bases in multiple countries now sat exposed to Iranian missile strikes. Israel continued absorbing heavy blows from Iran. After dismantling large swaths of US air defense radar, Iran announced it would no longer fire missiles under one ton—meaning it would deploy heavy missiles against US forces and Israel in the region, leaving the US in a severely weakened position.


Third, closing the Strait of Hormuz

Iran controls the throat of the Strait of Hormuz, through which 40% of the world's oil must pass. According to Lloyd's List data, only 77 vessels have transited the strait since March this year. In the same period last year, March 1 to 11, 1,229 vessels passed through. The Strait of Hormuz is approaching a de facto blockade. Oil prices have surged sharply, and Trump's approval ratings have plummeted. He's freaking out.

Trump's latest move is to drag China into the fray. In an interview with the Financial Times on Sunday, March 15, he demanded that countries join the United States in escorting vessels through the Strait of Hormuz. He said beneficiaries of the strait should help ensure nothing bad happens to it. Since 90% of China's oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz, he believes China should also provide assistance. He also suggested possibly delaying the planned end-of-month US-China summit with President Xi Jinping, hoping to know China's response before the meeting. Waiting two weeks until then would be too late.


Trump has now created a major crisis with Iran and cannot stop the conflict even if he wanted to. Even if the United States unilaterally ceases hostilities, it cannot guarantee that Iran will reopen the Strait of Hormuz and allow oil prices to fall rapidly. So while the US appears to want China to join in escorting vessels through the Strait of Hormuz, it may actually be asking China to play peacemaker and mediate the dispute between the US and Iran, allowing Trump to exit with dignity.

Trump is that pathetic character who creates trouble everywhere and then needs others to help clean up his mess.


Lo Wing-hung