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
** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **
