Nepalese Students Visit Hong Kong to Discuss Impact of Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) - LegCo Members and Nepalese Consul-General Share Insights

Author: Member of the Legislative Council, Dr. Lee Hoey Simon

Under the joint initiative of Legislative Council Members Hon Maggie Chan Man-ki, Dr Hon Thomas So Shiu-tsung, Hon Wu Yingpeng, Dr Hon Hoey Simon Lee, law students from Kathmandu University and Tribhuvan University in Nepal recently came to Hong Kong to participate in the annual International Commercial Arbitration Moot Court Competition, and jointly organized the "A Young Chat of the Rule of Law and Social Development of Nepel since the BRI". Dr Bindeswar Prasad Lekhak, Consul-General of Nepal to HKSAR, attended the seminar. The event was supported by Regal Hotels Group, China Resources Group, Tseng Hin Pei Charity Fund Limited, and Basic Law Foundation, among other organizations.

This marks the fourth consecutive year that Legislative Council Member Dr Hon Hoey Simon Lee has gathered with young law students from BRI country in Hong Kong. This year, for the first time, the exchange was jointly organized with multiple Legislative Council Members, and for the first time, the Nepalese Consul-General in Hong Kong attended.

In his opening remarks, Dr Lekhak, Consul-General of Nepal to HKSAR, emphasized the long-standing and robust friendship between Nepal and China, reaffirming Nepal's steadfast commitment in upholding the one-China principle. Dr Lekhak pointed out that China is Nepal's second-largest trading partner, with close ties spanning trade, foreign direct investment, and tourism. Since Nepal participated in the BRI in 2017, collaborative projects have expanded across various sectors—including urban development, infrastructure, education, health, sports, and energy—providing significant opportunities for Nepal’s development. Nepal has a favorable investment environment and welcomes all sectors in Hong Kong to further strengthen economic and trade cooperation with Nepal.

During the seminar, the Nepalese law students shared profound insights into the positive changes the BRI has brought to their region, specifically discussing its tangible impact on improving local livelihoods and advancing the rule of law. They pointed out that during the pandemic, the BRI framework facilitated vaccine and medical assistance to Nepal, playing a significant role in humanitarian relief. In the long term, they have a positive vision for the BRI’s promotion of cross-border connectivity, bringing medical services, economic opportunities, trade efficiency, and cultural preservation to benefit local communities.

Local Hong Kong young leaders also participated in the exchange, engaging in in-depth discussions on how the BRI promotes the rule of law in Nepal, with particular focus on the critical role of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, such as mediation and arbitration, in promoting regional legal cooperation. This exchange fostered mutual learning and deepened understanding and recognition, served as a vital communication bridge for young leaders from different cultural backgrounds.

To showcase their heritage, the Nepalese students presented traditional souvenirs, including Dhaka topi, handmade yak milk soaps, and traditional instruments singing bowls. The venue was also decorated with BRI-themed exhibition installations, enable attendees to experience the cultural charm of Nepal firsthand and further strengthening their friendship.

Legislative Councillor Dr Simon Lee and Consul-General Dr Lekhak (left) exchanged views at the Hong Kong Legislative Council

Legislative Councillor Dr Simon Lee and Consul-General Dr Lekhak (front row right) exchanged views with law students from two Nepalese universities at the Hong Kong Legislative Council

Councillor Dr Simon Lee presents Legislative Council souvenirs prepared for Consul-General Dr Lekhak (second from right)

China Resources Group Senior Group Legal Counsel Johnny Ip Chun-yuen (fifth from left), Tseng Hin Pei Charity Fund Limited Representative Riley Tseng Fanwei (sixth from left), Legislative Council Member Dr Hon Hoey Simon Lee, Consul-General of Nepal to HKSAR Dr Bindeswar Prasad Lekhak (eight from left), Legislative Council Member Hon Maggie Chan Man-ki, Member of the Guangzhou Municipal Committee of the CPPCC and Chairman of the Supervisory Board of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area International Maritime and Commercial Mediation Center Tan Guojian (tenth from left), pose for a group photo with law students from two Nepalese universities at the Hong Kong LegCo

Tseng Hin Pei Charity Fund Limited Representative Riley Tseng Fanwei (first from left), Legislative Council Member Hon Maggie Chan Man-ki, Consul-General of Nepal to HKSAR Dr Bindeswar Prasad Lekhak (third from left), Legislative Council Member Dr Hon Hoey Simon Lee, China Resources Group Senior Group Legal Counsel Johnny Ip Chun-yuen (fifth from left) pose for a group photo wearing traditional Nepalese Dhaka topi

Kathmandu University law student representatives deliver presentation

Tribhuvan University law student representatives deliver presentation

Tribhuvan University law student representative assists Legislative Council Member Dr Hon Hoey Simon Lee to wear the traditional Nepalese Dhaka topi

Tribhuvan University law student representatives present souvenirs to Legislative Council Member Dr Hon Hoey Simon Lee

Legislative Council Members Dr Hon Thomas So Shiu-tsung, Dr Hon Hoey Simon Lee, Hon Wu Yingpeng pose for a group photo wearing traditional Nepalese Dhaka topi

Legislative Council Members Dr Hon Hoey Simon Lee, Hon Wu Yingpeng, Dr Hon Thomas So Shiu-tsung pose for a group photo with law students from two Nepalese universities wearing traditional Nepalese Dhaka topi

InsightSpeak

** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **

 Liang Yaqi, a member of the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macau Studies

 On 7 May 2026, the Central Criminal Court in London delivered its verdict on Chung Biu Yuen, Administrative Manager of the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office in London, and Chi Leung Wai, a former UK border official. This first national security case to be heard under the UK National Security Act 2023 has been marred by an air of irregularity from start to finish: persistent procedural flaws, a fragile chain of evidence and numerous inconsistencies have led many to question whether this was a fair trial or a carefully orchestrated political manoeuvre.

 Preconceived notions shaped public perception, undermining procedural fairness. Even before the trial had formally commenced, the public discourse was already fraught with tension. Following the case’s first court appearance in 2024, a document purported to be a ‘summary of the charges’ circulated widely in the media. It disclosed in detail the defendant’s specific actions, included screenshots of CCTV footage from relevant activities, and even listed details concerning the London Economic and Trade Office’s involvement in the case, clearly intended to steer public attention towards the Office’s role. Some Hong Kong media outlets have questioned why, in the past, law enforcement agencies would typically handle indictments involving sensitive case details with great caution or even keep them confidential; the current situation appears rather unusual. Even before a jury has been selected and the formal trial has begun, the public and potential jurors have already been led by preconceived notions into a narrative of the case dominated by the prosecution. This directly crosses the red line set by Section 52(a) of the UK’s Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which prohibits the media from reporting content that may prejudice the defendant during the preliminary hearing stage. Before the defendants have even spoken, they have been labelled – this practice of ‘pre-conviction’ by the media is clearly extremely unfair to the defence and undermines procedural fairness.

 The mysterious death of the third defendant has deepened the mystery surrounding the case. Even more chilling is the fact that shortly after the case was brought before the court, the third defendant, Matthew Trickett, a former Royal Marines serviceman, died under mysterious circumstances in a park. As a former soldier and an enforcement officer with the Home Office’s Immigration Service, Trickett could have provided crucial testimony to clarify whether the operation was ‘officially authorised’ or a private act. His sudden passing deprived the defence of a vital witness, preventing the full chain of evidence from being thoroughly examined in court and sparing the prosecution from the potential risks of cross-examination. Given the highly sensitive timing of his death, Trickett’s solicitor expressed shock at his passing, whilst some netizens have even suspected that he was “silenced”. Although the authorities have denied foul play, it is lamentable that the judicial process has been “streamlined” due to the death of a single individual.

 The prosecution’s evidence was flimsy and unconvincing. Section 3 of the UK National Security Act 2023 stipulates that the offence of “aiding a foreign intelligence service” requires proof that the act “is likely to substantially assist a foreign intelligence service”. Yet throughout the trial, the prosecution failed to present any fundamental evidence that the defendant’s actions had substantially harmed UK national security. The alleged acts cited by the prosecution—such as the defendant’s purported surveillance of Hong Kong residents, unauthorised access to immigration databases, and door-to-door “debt collection”—sound more like ordinary criminal offences. The prosecution essentially pieced together a case based on electronic evidence such as communication records and financial transactions, yet never produced irrefutable proof that the defendant engaged in “intelligence activities” that posed an actual security threat to the UK. Forcing ordinary behaviour to be elevated to the level of national security constitutes a “hat trick” that fails to convince.

 The judge’s guidance was markedly biased, contravening her role of impartiality. Prior to the verdict, the judge’s instructions to the jury were also biased. She repeatedly emphasised the prosecution’s perspective regarding the admissibility of evidence and the assessment of witness credibility. For instance, although much of the evidence presented by the prosecution in court occurred before the UK National Security Act 2023 came into force—and should therefore not have retroactive effect—the judge reminded the jury that they could treat this as “background information” to understand the defendant’s network of contacts. Although the judge stated that such background information could not be used directly as a basis for conviction, and this appeared neutral on the surface, in reality it had already painted the defendant in a negative light. Furthermore, when the jury had deliberated for several days without reaching a ‘unanimous verdict’ on all charges against the defendant, the judge instructed that the standard be lowered from a ‘unanimous verdict’ to a ‘majority verdict’. Whilst this move was not unlawful, in such a highly sensitive national security case, might the proactive lowering of the threshold to facilitate a conviction give rise to public doubts regarding the impartiality of the trial? Might it create a negative perception that the judicial process is not sufficiently fair?

The jury’s deliberations were fraught with difficulties, and there appeared to be political pressure. The deliberation phase was marked by a series of setbacks: one juror was hospitalised due to ill health, whilst another requested to withdraw. Chi Leung Wai’s defence counsel at one point questioned whether this juror had been ‘bullied’ by other dissenting jurors; this was precisely why the judge instructed the jury that day to ‘respect differences of opinion but continue to work together to seek consensus’.After four days of deliberations, the jury had still failed to reach a “unanimous verdict”, indicating that it was struggling to reach a consensus on the facts of the case. It was not until the fifth day, following the judge’s instruction to lower the standard of the verdict, that the jury, after a protracted stalemate, barely met the minimum threshold of a 10-2 majority verdict on the charge of “assisting a foreign intelligence agency”, whilst they remained unable to reach a verdict on the charge of “foreign interference”. Whether this outcome truly reflects the jurors’ inner conviction or is merely a compromise born of prolonged pressure is a matter for reflection.

 The UK National Security Act is defined in overly broad terms, making it highly susceptible to expansion and abuse. A review of the entire case process exposes the fundamental flaw of the UK National Security Act 2023, which is its extreme vagueness. The Act stipulates that the offence of “aiding a foreign intelligence service” is committed whenever an act is likely to assist a foreign intelligence service in carrying out activities relating to the UK; the definition of a foreign intelligence service is even broader, encompassing any person conducting intelligence activities for or on behalf of a foreign state. It is clear that the threshold for the offence of “aiding a foreign intelligence service” is so low that it could encompass many ordinary activities. Even Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer appointed by the UK Home Secretary, has publicly stated that the relevant provisions of the UK National Security Act 2023 could extend to political, journalistic and other everyday activities, placing legitimate lobbying, journalistic investigations and even ordinary commercial activities at risk of criminalisation. He emphasised that the Act must be subject to oversight to prevent its “abuse and overreach”.

 Ironically, the UK completely ignores the fact that its own national security provisions are vague and broadly applicable, and turns a blind eye to the various flaws in the adjudication of national security cases, yet it repeatedly criticises and meddles in the Hong Kong National Security Law. Such double standards appear particularly hypocritical and laughable. If the UK truly cares about the rule of law, it would do well to return to the principles of evidence-based adjudication and procedural justice, rectify errors in cases as soon as possible, and ensure that the judiciary does not become a mere appendage of politics, thereby trampling the spirit of the rule of law underfoot!