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. **

"When meat rots, maggots appear; when fish dries, worms breed; when one grows complacent and forgets oneself, disaster follows." These words from Xunzi's chapter "Encouraging Learning" could not be more apt as a description of America's Epstein scandal. No one could have imagined that the American system had decayed to such a degree.

During the recent Winter Olympics, Western reporters pressed Eileen Gu – who competed for China – for her views on the Jimmy Lai case and the so-called Xinjiang genocide. When she declined to comment, she was savaged by American television hosts. The irony is glaring: Americans fixate on an alleged Xinjiang genocide that exists only in fiction, yet turn a blind eye to the Epstein scandal erupting right before their eyes. Why did no reporter press Eileen Gu for her views on the Epstein case?

Former Prince Andrew of the United Kingdom has finally been arrested. The British royal family had long known of Andrew's criminal involvement in the Epstein affairs, yet only distanced themselves from him in October last year – and the government has only now taken action. How remarkably swift. Had they acted with the same urgency they showed over the Jimmy Lai case, Prince Andrew would surely be behind bars already. The ancient saying – "the law does not reach the privileged; propriety does not extend to the common folk" – finds yet another confirmation in the West.

America has partially declassified over three million pages of documents related to the Epstein case. While the files appear to give the Trump administration some leeway, the contents are already horrifying. The documents implicate sitting and former American presidents, European royalty, business titans, religious leaders, and leading academics – the filth on display is truly beyond description.

We see that Thorbjørn Jagland – former Prime Minister of Norway and former chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee – continued to maintain close ties with Epstein even after his 2008 conviction, to the point where Epstein could effectively influence who received the Nobel Prize. We also see how Larry Summers – former US Treasury Secretary and former president of Harvard University – discussed with Epstein the art of womanising.

Even more shocking is that among those closely associated with Epstein was Noam Chomsky, widely regarded as the father of American linguistics. Long considered a public intellectual – a philosopher who spent his entire life teaching people how to challenge the powerful – Chomsky himself turns out to be one of the very corrupt elites he claimed to oppose. The Dalai Lama is also part of this picture. Given that Western journalists show such keen interest in Xinjiang, one wonders why they show no similar zeal for Tibet – or for relentlessly pursuing the scandal surrounding the Dalai Lama's connections to Epstein.

The shocking secrets unearthed by the Epstein case go far beyond the mere operation of a prostitution ring.

First – Even Worse Crimes

The public's greatest suspicion surrounding the Epstein case is this: while the scandal exposed that Epstein used underage girls for prostitution on his private island – known as "Lolita Island" – those powerful men involved could have easily arranged their own channels had they simply wanted to pay for sex. There was no need for such elaborate orchestration.

According to a source who was incarcerated alongside Epstein in the United States, what truly drew America's powerful elites to Epstein was not his sex operation, but his promise of eternal youth. While stem cell therapies have long been banned in America, academic research had apparently shown that injections of stem cell extracts could restore youthful vitality. The rumour goes that Epstein arranged for these elites to father children with the girls on the island, then extract stem cells from their own biological offspring and inject them into themselves – since the children shared their DNA, there would be no immune rejection. 

This same source also claimed that just days before Epstein's so-called "suicide," he had spoken with Epstein, who was in high spirits with absolutely no signs of suicidal intent – lending weight to the suspicion that Epstein “was suicided."

With this explosive secret now in the open, and with Epstein dead and vast quantities of evidence suppressed by US authorities, the matter has become an unsolvable case.

However, emails released by the US Department of Justice show that Epstein generously funded Harvard University, much of it directed at biological research – including work by renowned genomics pioneer George Church. Church had outlined to Epstein a research programme totalling US$10 million, to be implemented across 10 phases. Among the projects was one called "Supercentenarianstudy.com" (a centenarian research project), alongside research into creating virus-resistant animals through gene editing, reversing the ageing process, and producing "cold-resistant elephants." It is clear that Epstein had an intense interest in age reversal.

If this scheme – harvesting stem cells from the elites' own biological offspring – were true, every powerful individual who participated would have committed murder and numerous other grave crimes. With evidence of their crimes firmly in the hands of Epstein and the network behind him, manipulating these elites would have been effortless.

Second – Who Is Behind It All?

The same source noted that Epstein was no ordinary figure. His girlfriend came from a foreign intelligence family, and the entire Epstein operation was funded by that country. The whole affair was a deliberate setup – a carefully orchestrated operation built around an island offering sex and the promise of eternal youth, designed to lure the Western elite – primarily Americans – into participating, then using evidence of their crimes to control their political behaviour. This explains why in the United States, regardless of whether it is the Democratic or Republican Party, there is invariably a unified and unconditional stance whenever issues relating to that country arise.

Third – The Collapse of a System

In American Hollywood films, we are always presented with a principled hero who risks his life to fight the powerful and ultimately triumphs – a happy ending. Reality, however, is precisely the opposite: the West tells you to stand on principle while having none of its own.

 Britain has now arrested former Prince Andrew on a charge of mere "misconduct in public office" – suspected of leaking British trade documents to Epstein. Even for that offence, he could have been charged under the Official Secrets Act, which would have been far more serious. Of course, Virginia Giuffre – the woman who accused the former prince of sexual assault – reached an out-of-court settlement with him in 2020, collecting US$12 million. Although she never took the case to trial, she continued to allege that the former prince had engaged in sexual relations with eight underage girls who could not speak English – a far graver criminal allegation. Last April, 41-year-old Giuffre "died by suicide" in Australia. This brings to mind the case of Princess Diana, who met her end in a car crash amid royal scandal – a death that many still believe was no ordinary accident.

Britain devotes so much energy to meddling in the Jimmy Lai case and Hong Kong's democratic development, when it should really put its own house in order – abolishing its feudal and rotten monarchy before it can claim to be a truly modern state.

As for America's continuing effort to export its own model of democracy worldwide – that is even more laughable. America need not lecture us on how to prevent the next Epstein scandal, because it appears genuinely impossible to prevent under the American system. What America needs to answer is how to prevent the forces behind the Epstein affair from being exploited to manipulate American politicians – and I cannot think of any satisfactory answer it could give. In a system this rotten, no one is ever held accountable.

As the Gospel of Matthew so aptly puts it: "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

Lo Wing-hung