Tightening the Net on Subversive “Parliaments” Is Exactly the Point

Ignorance is not an alibi you can pull out after breaking the law. The maxim that “ignorance of the law is no excuse” matters even more when national security is at stake, because those who gamble on “not knowing” usually do so after reading the headlines and deciding to ignore them.

On Monday (24 November), the Secretary for Security exercised section 60(1) of the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance and issued an order proposing to prohibit the operation of the “Hong Kong Parliament” and the “Hong Kong Democratic Independence Union” in Hong Kong, with separate written notices sent to both groups as required by the statute.

According to the Security Bureau’s explanation, these two organisations have an openly declared aim of subverting state power: they push “self‑determination”, talk about drafting a separate “constitution” for Hong Kong, and seek to overturn or undermine the basic system of the People’s Republic of China as laid down in the PRC Constitution, including the organs of state power of both the Central Authorities and the HKSAR.

Before any final prohibition order is made, the two organisations have been given the statutory chance to make representations, and only after considering these will the Bureau issue its final decision, in line with the procedural safeguards spelled out in section 60.

Who Built This “Parliament”?

Two fugitives wanted by the Hong Kong Police, Elmer Yuen and Victor Ho, set up the so‑called “Hong Kong Parliament” Electoral Organizing Committee in Canada on 27 July 2022, marketing it as a “parliament of Hong Kong people” with the explicit goal of pushing Hong Kong “independence”.

From February to May this year, this committee staged what it called “parliamentary elections” and selected 15 so‑called “members of parliament”, a made‑for‑camera exercise designed to dress up a separatist political project as if it were some kind of alternative legislature.

Another wanted exile, Keung Ka‑wai, created the “Hong Kong Democratic Independence Union”, which likewise openly advocates Hong Kong “independence” and feeds into the same overseas network challenging China’s sovereignty over the city.

Seven members of this group announced early this year that they would stand in the “Hong Kong Parliament” Electoral Organizing Committee elections and called on the public to vote.

Debunking The “No Operation In Hong Kong” Myth

After the Security Bureau moved to prohibit these two organisations from operating in Hong Kong, online critics immediately jumped in, claiming that the groups do not actually operate here and that the Secretary for Security’s move is therefore pointless – a claim that collapses the moment you read the Ordinance and the facts in existing cases.

Such arguments are textbook examples of “legal illiteracy”. By invoking the National Security Ordinance to prohibit these organisations, the first concrete effect is that every part of their operation in Hong Kong instantly becomes illegal.

Before any prohibition order, if these organisations carried out activities in Hong Kong, the Government had to analyse their conduct under both the Hong Kong National Security Law and the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance to see whether particular acts crossed into defined offences, which made enforcement slower and more complex.

Take a simple example. If some members of such an organisation – who are not themselves wanted persons – came to Hong Kong and ran a “how to invest in virtual currencies” event, using it as a recruitment tool and then gradually radicalising participants into anti‑government activists, the crypto‑investment seminar, viewed in isolation, would not obviously be unlawful.

But once the organisations are expressly designated as prohibited, every activity in Hong Kong undertaken in their name becomes unlawful by definition, closing off the tactic of hiding political mobilisation behind seemingly neutral subjects.

The second major effect is that section 62 of the National Security Ordinance criminalises participation in the activities of a prohibited organisation.

Under section 62, once an organisation is designated as prohibited, anyone who serves as an officer, claims to be an officer, or manages the organisation commits an offence and faces up to a HK$1 million fine and 14 years’ imprisonment on conviction.

Even an ordinary member who participates in the organisation’s activities or assemblies, or who pays money to it or provides other forms of assistance, also breaks the law and risks, upon conviction, up to HK$250,000 in fines and 10 years in prison.

From Grey Area To Clear Line

Think about how this worked in the past. When these organisations tried to recruit in Hong Kong, there was a grey area over whether ordinary participants were committing any offence, and prosecutors had to prove that participants knew the organisation was engaging in activities to subvert the government or split the country before laying the related charges or relying on the lesser “aiding and abetting” route.

Now that these two organisations are expressly designated as illegal, prosecution becomes far more straightforward: simply becoming a member already constitutes an offence, and anyone claiming to be an officer risks a heavy sentence of up to 14 years in jail.

Since the Secretary for Security has publicly named these organisations and moved to ban their operation in Hong Kong, defendants can no longer credibly argue that they “did not understand” the nature of the groups or pretend they thought they were just joining some harmless civic club.

The Bettie Lan Wake‑Up Call

There is already a concrete case connected to these illegal organisations. Court records show that one of the wanted persons, Lam Chin‑gan (Tony Lam), instructed his former girlfriend, Bettie Lan Fei, to record promotional videos for the “Hong Kong Parliament” in Canada between March and May this year and use social media to urge the public to join the so‑called “Hong Kong Parliament” vote. When Lan later returned to Hong Kong, she was arrested and charged with one count of doing an act with seditious intention under the National Security Ordinance.

Lan eventually pleaded guilty, calling herself naïve and saying she only offended because she was incited by her ex‑boyfriend. 

When passing sentence on 13 November, Chief Magistrate Victor So Wai‑tak stressed that the defendant had clearly supported the “Hong Kong Parliament” as a so‑called “overseas regime”, spreading slanders against China internationally, seriously misleading overseas audiences and promoting extremist ideas – aggravating factors that justified adding two months and jailing her for one year.

Lan’s case shows the real cost of ignorance. For each promotional video, she took 100 Canadian dollars; in exchange, she now has to spend a year in custody and carry a criminal record tied to national security‑related sedition.

At the same time, her case highlights that while her openly seditious videos clearly satisfied the offence of acts with seditious intention, there may be many other participants in these two illegal organisations who have not yet been prosecuted under the earlier legal framework, simply because the tools were less sharply defined.

Once the Secretary for Security designates the two groups as illegal organisations, any participation in their activities – even something that looks as casual as “liking” their content online, sharing their messages, or donating money – can fall within section 62(2)(d) of the National Security Ordinance as “making payments to the organisation or providing other forms of assistance”, exposing the person to potential prosecution.

Ignorance is not a defence, especially not after the authorities have publicly named and moved against these organisations. People should not be misled by “legally illiterate” commentators claiming that the Secretary for Security’s plan to ban the two groups from operating in Hong Kong is meaningless, when the Ordinance expressly turns their activities and support networks into prosecutable conduct.

In reality, tightening the legal net is both highly effective and badly needed to protect national security, defend China’s constitutional order, and send a clear message that dressing up separatism as an “overseas parliament” will not escape the reach of Hong Kong law.

Lo Wing‑hung

Bastille Commentary

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

In a series of blistering statements,The Hong Kong Office for Safeguarding National Security (OSNS) has drawn a red line in the sand for anyone trying to weaponize the city’s recent misfortunes. The message is crystal clear and ominous: If you use disaster to sow chaos in Hong Kong, they will hunt you down—no matter where on Earth you try to hide.

On December 3, an OSNS spokesperson doubled down. While the HKSAR government and local citizens were racing to save lives following the tragedy at Wang Fuk Court in Tai Po, a shadow game was already in play. The office accuses a "small group of external hostile forces" of looting a burning house. Under the guise of petitioning for the people, these actors are dusting off the old playbooks from the "extradition bill protests". They are activating agents, sabotaging relief efforts, and desperately trying to reignite the "Black Riots" memories. The verdict? Their actions are despicable enough to be universally condemned.

To drive the point home, the OSNS fired off three consecutive warning shots to overseas antagonists and anti-China disruptors:

First, we solemnly warn hostile foreign forces and anti-China disrupters that their actions of creating chaos and disorder in Hong Kong are intolerable.

Second, we solemnly warn hostile foreign forces and anti-China disrupters that their actions of adding fuel to the fire will inevitably bring disastrous consequences to themselves.

Third, we solemnly warn hostile foreign forces and anti-China disrupters that the long arm of the law will catch up with them.

The OSNS is keeping receipts. Every word and every action used to disrupt Hong Kong goes on the permanent record, and culprits will be pursued for life. "Anyone who breaks the law," the office warns, there is no sanctuary. Whether you are hiding across the ocean or taking refuge in Taiwan, severe legal punishment is inevitable.

Why is the OSNS speaking up now? Read between the lines, and you see three strategic pivots.

First, this isn’t hypothetical; they believe the foreign interference is already happening. Second, the crosshairs are locked on external forces, with a pointed finger specifically at those hiding in Taiwan. And third, it’s a preemptive strike against anyone overseas dreaming of stirring up another color revolution. The warning is blunt: Distance is not a defense.

Opportunists, Grifters, and Organized Lies

Take a look at the chatter exploding across the internet, and the opposing voices generally fall into distinct camps.

First, you have the fair critics. There is plenty of commentary that, while critical of the SAR government, remains objective. These observers stick to the facts disclosed by official investigations rather than drifting into malicious fantasy. This is a natural, human reaction to a "disaster of the century." And the smart money says the SAR government will take this advice to heart and improve.

Then come the fame vampires. When disaster struck, the opportunists came out of the woodwork. Look at "internet celebrity" Kenny, arrested on December 3 after cursing the Tai Po fire victims online for having "heavy sins." It was a blatant, tasteless grab for traffic, and it landed him in handcuffs for sedition. Then there are the exiled influencers abroad, wantonly bashing the SAR government while coincidentally begging people to subscribe to their Patreon accounts. The hustle is obvious: They are monetizing misery to please their financiers.

Finally, there is the organized sedition. Beyond the grifters, we are seeing waves of calculated propaganda. These aren't just complaints; they are fabrications designed to smear the SAR government and attack the Central system. Rumor mills are churning out wild stories linking material suppliers to the families of Central leaders—plots that are total fiction. It’s as if they believe overthrowing the Central government provides immunity from fire physics. Do massive fires not happen in Western democracies? The logic is broken, but in the heat of a disaster, it’s a potent recipe for inciting public rage.

Sniper Attacks From The Shadows

The temperature on these seditious campaigns was rising fast until the Police National Security Department stepped in. Once they acted, the local noise quieted down—but the overseas attacks only intensified. It raises a suspicious question: Is there a coordinated machine working behind the scenes to sustain sniper attacks against the SAR government? The narrative is set in stone: Whatever the government does is wrong. Before a single investigator has arrived on the scene, the instigators are already screaming for heads to roll.

Here is the bottom line. The OSNS isn’t pointing fingers at external forces for sport; they are firing warning shots because they see the smoke rising. We need to be sharper than ever. Don't let external opposing forces play you for a fool, twisting a tragic fire into a tool for subverting the local government—or even the Central government itself.

Lo Wing-hung