Speech by SJ at plenary session of 16th China-ASEAN Prosecutors-General Conference in Brunei
Following is the speech by the Secretary for Justice, Mr Paul Lam, SC, at the plenary session of the 16th China-ASEAN Prosecutors-General Conference in Brunei today (October 22):
Your Excellencies, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen,
Children today grow up in an interconnected digital world that offers unprecedented opportunities for education and development. But at the same time, modern technology exposes them to grave and fast-evolving risks - from violent or pornographic content on social media platforms, to online grooming, non-consensual sharing of intimate images, deepfake manipulation, cyberbullying, coercion and fraud.
The stark reality is that digital harm to children knows no borders. For example, an intimate image of a child, once created or uploaded, can be copied, disseminated and recirculated repeatedly and instantaneously across different jurisdictions. A child may have to live with the fear that such material will resurface at any time, transforming a single act of abuse into a cycle of victimisation. Against this backdrop, protecting children in the digital age is an urgent, shared regional and international responsibility which demands synchronised legal and institutional responses.
Hong Kong's existing legal framework
In this respect, Hong Kong maintains a solid legal framework to protect children from online sexual exploitation and other forms of cyber-enabled crime.
To begin with, the Prevention of Child Pornography Ordinance criminalises a broad range of conduct involving child pornography, including printing, producing, copying, importing, exporting, publishing, and possessing child pornography, with maximum penalties ranging from three to eight years' imprisonment upon conviction. The Ordinance includes express provisions for the forfeiture of any child pornography, as well as any machinery or apparatus used to commit the relevant offences.
Importantly, the statutory definition of "child pornography" under the Ordinance encompasses any "computer-generated image or other visual depiction" - irrespective of whether it is generated by electronic or other means, whether it depicts a real person, or whether it has been "modified". The Ordinance thus extends beyond traditional physical media to capture synthetic, computer-generated, or altered materials. This statutory definition is vital in ensuring that our legal framework remains future-proofed against rapid technological change.
Another milestone in Hong Kong's legislative framework is the enactment of the comprehensive voyeurism and non-consensual intimate image regime under Part XIIAA of the Crimes Ordinance in 2021. Voyeurism covers acts of observing or recording, with or without equipment, another person's intimate part or doing an intimate act without consent for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification or causing humiliation, distress, or alarm. This law also criminalises acts of non-consensual recording, publication and threatened publication of intimate images, carrying maximum penalties up to five years' imprisonment. "Intimate image" under the Ordinance includes an image that has been altered to appear to show an intimate part or an individual doing an intimate act, providing a clear legal basis to tackle digital editing and manipulation - tactics increasingly used for online extortion and sexual exploitation.
Significantly, the legislation provides that a child under 16 is legally incapable of giving consent. This provides vital protection for young people vulnerable to online image exploitation.
Furthermore, the statutory framework empowers our courts to issue a disposal order requiring any person, whether in Hong Kong and elsewhere, to take reasonable steps to remove, delete, or destroy such images, at any stage during criminal proceedings, and its validity remains unaffected even if the prosecution is subsequently discontinued or the defendant is acquitted. Importantly, the court can order the service of such disposal order on a person or entity out of jurisdiction. This extra-territorial mechanism applies to online platforms and social media providers operating outside Hong Kong, ensuring that our laws do not merely punish offenders but actively disrupt the cycle of victimisation at its source.
The above statutes are examples of Hong Kong's legislation tailored specifically to child protection. But it must be borne in mind that many traditional criminal offences are "technologically neutral" - meaning that the law applies with equal force regardless of whether the offence is committed physically or via digital means. For instance, cyberbullying or online extortion may be prosecuted under offences such as criminal intimidation, carrying a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment, or blackmail with a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment. In a Court of Appeal case decided back in 2018, the defendant who secretly recorded intimate videos of his partner and threatened their online dissemination to her colleagues and friends was convicted for, among other things, the offence of criminal intimidation. The Court laid down key sentencing principles for secret filming - specifically recognising the grave risk of rapid, indefinite online spread.
Child protection as a shared responsibility
Having said all these, we recognise that maintaining existing a legal framework alone is not enough. As the Court of Appeal highlighted in the recent case decided earlier this year, young and inexperienced users are increasingly vulnerable to being lured into harm through online dating and networking platforms.
In that case, a 16-year-old girl was lured via a dating app by a 41-year-old man posing as a 27 year old, leading to sexual abuse and rape. The Court of Appeal remarked that owners and operators of social media, dating applications, and other online platforms cannot treat criminal conduct on their services as a matter solely for law enforcement. Rather, platform providers play a pivotal role in shaping a safe online environment.
This case serves as an important reminder that child protection in the digital age is a shared responsibility that cannot rely solely on criminal prosecution. Safeguarding children from modern virtual risks requires a co-ordinated strategy combining effective legislation, rigorous law enforcement, industry accountability, early intervention, and public education.
Hong Kong's responses to emerging risks
In response to the growing need to protect children amidst rapid technological change, Hong Kong has advanced a series of key initiatives for better protection of children.
As a broader strategic background, Hong Kong published its First Five-Year Plan for Economic and Social Development (First Five-Year Plan for Economic and Social Development of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (2026-2030)) on September 16, 2026, in alignment with the National 15th Five-Year Plan. The Plan sets down long-term strategic directives to, among other key areas, fortify security governance, combat newly emerged cybercrimes through deeper cross-boundary law enforcement collaboration, and enhance child welfare and abuse reporting mechanisms.
First, the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) has announced in the Policy Address 2026 that a dedicated task force on minors' use of social media will be established under the Inter-Departmental Working Group to Review Legislation to Support Wider Application of AI spearheaded by the Department of Justice. The task force will review the risks associated with the use of social media by minors, and assess the need for more targeted legislative and administrative solutions.
In considering the way forward, the Government will study international regulatory models and explore measures suitable for Hong Kong, particularly regarding the responsibilities of Internet service providers. For instance:
(1) whether the platforms should be required to systematically identify risk of criminal conduct on their services and implement effective user warnings;
(2) whether heightened protective measures and age-related safeguards should be mandated for minor users;
(3) whether the platforms should maintain simple, accessible reporting mechanisms for suspicious or abusive behaviour that trigger transparent, effective responses, including timely co-operation with law enforcement agencies.
The purpose of this initiative is not to isolate children from technology, nor to restrict their digital participation and fundamental rights. Rather, it is to ensure that children will not be exposed to risks and can engage with the online world safely, with appropriate safeguards against misinformation, harmful materials, or even illegal content.
Of course, legislative intervention is one among many tools. We need hard law on the one hand and soft mechanisms - such as industry guidelines, codes of conduct, and public education - on the other to drive proactive compliance. These tools are not mutually exclusive; they should operate in parallel. To this end, as also announced in the Policy Address 2026, the Education Bureau of the Hong Kong SAR will support schools in guiding students to use AI tools prudently, equipping them with the digital literacy and values needed to navigate online risks.
Second, also under the strategic directions of the Five-Year Plan and the Policy Address 2026, the Cybercrime Sub-committee of the Law Reform Commission is conducting an in-depth review of our legal framework, focusing specifically on AI-enabled crimes, including those targeting children. Having published its first report recommending bespoke cybercrime legislation, the Sub-committee's ongoing work centres on formulating robust statutory measures to tackle the illicit production of synthetic pornographic images, online fraud, and deepfake exploitation directed at minors.
Third, the Hong Kong SAR Government will introduce an amendment bill to comprehensively reform our sexual offence regime. This includes eight new bespoke child sexual offences, such as grooming, causing a child to view sexual images, and engaging in sexual communication with a child. These targeted proposals address modern online harms, from cyberflashing, online sexual exploitation, to digital sex trafficking.
Fourth, the Department of Justice has established a dedicated task force on vulnerable witnesses and child protection. Bringing together its Prosecutions Division, the Hong Kong Police Force, and the Social Welfare Department, this specialised task force fosters seamless multi-agency collaboration - facilitating early prosecutor intervention, expedited legal advice, and tailored court safeguards to minimise trauma for child victims throughout the judicial process. Under this joint framework, this task force has issued around 900 pieces of advice the since its inception in 2022.
Fifth, given the transnational nature of online child sexual exploitation, the Hong Kong Police Force has actively deepened international co-operation. In 2025, the Force joined the International Child Sexual Exploitation database of the INTERPOL (International Criminal Police Organization), an intelligence and investigative platform through which specialised investigators utilise advanced algorithms and intelligence sharing across more than 70 jurisdictions to identify victims and offenders.
In addition, the Police Force regularly participates in joint multi-jurisdictional operations. Notably, from March to April this year, Hong Kong joined law enforcement agencies from Brunei, Singapore, Malaysia, Japan, South Korea, and Thailand in a co-ordinated operation against child pornography, resulting in 326 arrests and the seizure of various mobile devices containing child pornographic materials.
The need for international co-operation
As I mentioned at the outset, cybercrimes targeted at children know no jurisdictional limits. Cross-border co-operation is indispensable. In this regard, I wish to highlight four essential areas for our joint collaborative efforts in child protection in the modern technological era.
First, keeping our legal frameworks abreast of technological change requires sharing of knowledge and experience. As cyber threats rapidly evolve, no single jurisdiction has all the answers. By sharing regulatory approaches and law drafting experiences, we can refine and update our existing laws.
Wherever appropriate, legislation should be designed with extra-territorial application. This is essential to enable effective investigation and prosecution when offenders operate in one country, target children in another, and disseminate abusive material across platforms hosted in a third.
Secondly, effective mutual legal assistance arrangements and adaptable evidence rules are essential for prosecuting transnational crimes where overseas evidence and child witnesses are involved. In Hong Kong, under Part IIIA of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, child witnesses who may not be able to endure the pressure of testifying in a traditional courtroom are permitted to give evidence via a live video-link or through pre-recorded interviews. Further, under Part VIIIA of the Evidence Ordinance, our courts may issue letters of request to foreign authorities to obtain evidence out of the jurisdiction, which is a very useful tool to obtain evidence in transboundary crimes.
In addition, relaxing the exceptions to the criminal hearsay rule under the common law is necessary to enable that the admissibility of foreign digital logs, records, and out-of-court statements in criminal proceedings. In this regard, Hong Kong is introducing a major reform of the hearsay rule in criminal and surrender proceedings under the Evidence (Amendment) Bill 2026 which was gazetted on June 12, 2026.
Thirdly, priority should be given to deepening co-operation between law enforcement agencies worldwide. As the Hong Kong experience shows, co-ordinated action can produce fruitful and meaningful results.
Our respective law enforcement agencies should establish clear and accessible communication channels with each other so as to facilitate the timely exchange of information and intelligence. Information shared promptly may enable authorities to identify children at immediate risk, locate offenders, or prevent the circulation of harmful material. By maintaining regular liaison at both the strategic and operational levels, we can significantly improve our ability to identify offenders of cross-border cybercrime and child exploitation early, and take prompt intervention action to disrupt cybercrime networks.
Lastly, we should not lose sight of the importance of continuous training and professional development of officers involved in the protection of children against transnational cybercrime. Specialist training is critical to protecting children in the digital age. Law enforcement agencies and other professionals working in this area must be well equipped to recognise the indicators of online grooming, AI-facilitated exploitation, and child abuse activities in various forms and manifestations. To this extent, regular international conferences and symposiums, meetings and working groups, as well as training courses, workshops, and seminars have an important role to play in cultivating our professional expertise. If cybercriminals can adapt and learn quickly from one another, we must be able to do better.
Conclusion
Your Excellencies, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen. It is often said that children are the future of the world. As prosecutors and ministers of justice representing our communities, it is incumbent upon us to ensure that children in this day and age can grow, learn, and explore in the digital world without being exposed to exploitation, abuse, or manipulation. That can only be done if governments join hands to take effective measures locally, regionally, and globally, to strengthen co-operation at all levels and among all relevant agencies. As I have said before, "alone we can do so little, together we can do so much". On behalf of the Hong Kong SAR, I can say loud and clear that all branches of our Government will continue to promote international co-operation to better the protection for children amidst the digital age in all ways possible.
On this note, may I once conclude by congratulating the Attorney General's Chambers of Brunei Darussalam for holding this important and successful conference, and expressing our utmost gratitude to your warm hospitality. My gratitude also goes to all the distinguished speakers for sharing their invaluable insights and experience. Thank you very much.
Source: AI-found images
HKSAR Government strongly condemns and firmly rejects the UK six-monthly report on Hong Kong
The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) strongly condemns and must resolutely refute the untruthful remarks, slanders and smears against various aspects of the HKSAR in the so-called six-monthly report on Hong Kong: January to June 2026 of the United Kingdom (UK) today (October 23).
A spokesman for the HKSAR Government stressed, "The HKSAR is an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China, and as a local administrative region that enjoys a high degree of autonomy under the principle of 'One Country, Two Systems', comes directly under the jurisdiction of the Central People's Government. The HKSAR steadfastly safeguards national sovereignty, security and development interests, and fully and faithfully lives up to this top priority of the 'One Country, Two Systems' principle. The HKSAR Government strongly condemns and firmly rejects the UK's attempt through a so-called six-monthly report to make misleading and irresponsible remarks about Hong Kong matters, distort facts and reverse right and wrong, and attempt to interfere in the HKSAR Government's law-based governance by despicable political maneuvers."
"The core essence of the Sino-British Joint Declaration is about China's resumption of the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong. It did not authorise the UK to interfere in Hong Kong's affairs after its return to the motherland. The UK has no sovereignty, jurisdiction or right of supervision over Hong Kong after its return to the motherland. The HKSAR Government strongly urges the UK again to discern facts from fallacies, respect the international law and basic norms governing international relations, and immediately stop its long-arm jurisdiction and interference in Hong Kong matters, which are purely China's internal affairs."
Safeguarding Rights and Freedoms
The HKSAR Government spokesman said, "The HKSAR Government steadfastly safeguards the rights and freedoms enjoyed by Hong Kong people as protected under the law. Since Hong Kong's return to the motherland, human rights in the city have always been robustly guaranteed constitutionally by both the Constitution and the Basic Law. The offences endangering national security stipulated by the Hong Kong National Security Law (HKNSL) and the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance (SNSO) target acts endangering national security with precision, and define the elements and penalties of the offences with clarity. The relevant laws do not affect normal exchanges of local institutions, organisations and individuals with other countries, regions and international organisations including the United Nations. Law-abiding persons will not unwittingly violate the law."
"The HKNSL and SNSO clearly stipulate that human rights shall be respected and protected in safeguarding national security in the HKSAR, and that the rights and freedoms, including the freedoms of speech, of the press, of publication, of association, of assembly, of procession and of demonstration that Hong Kong residents enjoy under the Basic Law and the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as applied to Hong Kong, shall be protected in accordance with the law. Nonetheless, just as the case with other places in the world, such rights and freedoms are not absolute. The ICCPR also expressly states that some of them may be subject to restrictions as prescribed by law that are necessary for protection of national security, public safety, public order or the rights and freedoms of others, etc. The so-called report biasedly quoted figures to twist the facts by negating the determination and dedication of the HKSAR to persistently safeguard the lawful exercise of rights and freedom by citizens. The HKSAR Government must set the record straight and such act must be strongly condemned."
"Since the implementation of the HKNSL and the SNSO, the media landscape in Hong Kong has remained vibrant. However, some people with ulterior motives deliberately fabricated facts about freedom of the press and speech in Hong Kong. In fact, freedom of the press and speech are firmly protected in Hong Kong at a constitutional level under the Basic Law, but they are not absolute. The media, like everyone else, have an obligation to abide by all the laws. The media continue to enjoy the freedom to comment on and criticise government policies without any restriction, as long as this is not in violation of the law. The court further cited precedents from the European Court of Human Rights regarding press freedom in the reasons for a verdict of a relevant case, pointing out that the European Convention on Human Rights does not guarantee a wholly unrestricted freedom of speech even with respect to press coverage on matters of serious public concern. The most crucial point is that journalists must act in good faith and on accurate factual basis and provide reliable and precise information in accordance with the tenets of 'responsible journalism' in order to enjoy the protection of their rights to freedom of speech and press freedom. The so-called 'World Press Freedom Index' cited in the report was published by an organisation self-claimed as 'Reporters Without Borders'. Its funding has largely come from the European Union, the United States (US) State Department and other European governments, which merely serves as a tool for anti-China forces for the US and some western countries. The so-called 'rankings' lack credibility and can be disregarded. In fact, in recent years, the police of the UK have on numerous occasions arrested journalists in the name of counter-terrorism, including the recent arrest in Leicestershire of several journalists covering pro-Palestinian activities. This further highlights that the so-called safeguard of press freedom by the UK is merely a double standard in serving political ends."
Laws Safeguarding National Security
The HKSAR Government spokesman said, "The HKSAR Government strongly opposes the absurd and false contents in the UK's so-called six-monthly report with regard to the laws and the relevant efforts that safeguard national security in the HKSAR. It is each and every sovereign state's inherent right, under international law and international practice based on the Charter of the United Nations, to enact laws safeguarding national security, and it is also an international practice. Western countries, including the UK, maintain extensive and strict national security legal frameworks. There are at least 14 pieces of laws safeguarding national security in the UK. In June 2026, the UK Government introduced the National Security (State Threats) Bill 2026 in order to further expand the law enforcement powers and introduce new offences. On the ground of imminency, Parliament was requested to adopt the fast-track procedure to expedite the Parliamentary progress of the Bill. As a result, the Bill had its third reading and passed by the Parliament within a month. As of June 2026, the UK authorities arrested nearly 4 000 people pursuant to national security and counter-terrorism laws; representing 15 times increase compared to the same period of time last year and more than 15 times the median in the last 10 years. Majority of such arrests were associated with demonstrators supporting an organization that was proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000 by the UK Government. Just this past September 2026, more than 50 people were arrested simply because they held home-made banners peacefully in a protest in support of that proscribed organization, or because they were wearing or carrying an article supporting that proscribed organization, one of those arrested was a 94 years old barrister. The UK Government while swiftly and resolutely enforcing its harsh national security legislation, made large scale arrests of protesters in support of the proscribed organization under the Terrorism Act despite its decision to proscribe the relevant organization is subject to widespread criticisms. Yet, the UK Government smeared the HKNSL, which targets only a very small number of criminals endangering national security, and other relevant laws of the HKSAR, as well as the HKSAR law enforcement, prosecutorial and judicial authorities' performance of their duties in accordance with the law as 'undermining the rights and freedoms', and continued to unscrupulously distort the facts to criticize. This clearly exposes its hypocritical double standards, which are utterly ugly and despicable."
"In fact, the implementation of the HKNSL in the past six years or so has enabled the livelihood and economic activities of the Hong Kong community at large to swiftly return to normal and the business environment to be restored and improved continuously. Besides maintaining its position as the world's freest economy, Hong Kong has risen to top spot in cross boundary wealth management worldwide and is ranked second in world competitiveness. The city is ranked third among international financial centres, ranked first globally in terms of funds raised through initial public offerings, and continues to set new fundraising records in 2026: total funds raised in the first three quarters exceeded HK$388 billion, more than doubling the figure for the same period last year and setting a record for the highest amount raised in the first nine months of any year to date. Hong Kong comes first in the world in terms of funds raised through initial public offerings in 2025. Hong Kong remains high and unchanged in the overall ranking and continues to be ahead of the individual Western countries which often unreasonably criticise the rule of law and human rights situation of Hong Kong in the 2026 World Justice Project Rule of Law Index. These internationally recognised achievements are built upon the freedom and stability brought to Hong Kong society by the HKNSL, other relevant laws of the HKSAR, and the work of safeguarding national security."
"Hong Kong is a society underpinned by the rule of law and has always adhered to the principle that 'laws must be obeyed and lawbreakers be held accountable'. Article 5 of the HKNSL and section 2 of the SNSO clearly stipulate that the principle of the rule of law shall be adhered to in preventing, suppressing and imposing punishment for offences endangering national security. The HKSAR law enforcement agencies have been taking law enforcement actions based on evidence and strictly in accordance with the law in respect of the acts of the persons or entities concerned, which have nothing to do with their political stance, background or occupation. All cases are handled strictly on the basis of evidence and in accordance with the law. All defendants will receive fair trial strictly in accordance with laws applicable to Hong Kong (including the HKNSL) and as protected by the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights. Any suggestion that certain individuals or organisations should be immune from legal consequences for their illegal acts is no different from advocating a special privilege to break the law, and this totally runs contrary to the spirit of the rule of law."
"As to the so-called report's malicious smears against the verdict of the case of Lai Chee-ying involving offences endangering national security (Lai's case), the HKSAR Government must stress that the court's 855-pages long reasons for verdict is reasoned and well founded, backed by solid legal grounds and rigorous analysis, and is fully open for public inspection. It fully demonstrates that the court arrived at the verdict in strict accordance with the laws and evidence, free from any interference. The court also clearly pointed out in the reasons for verdict that Lai Chee-ying was not on trial for his political views or beliefs. The reasons for sentence also provided a detailed explanation of the considerations regarding sentence factors, unequivocally identified Lai Chee-ying as the mastermind and the driving force behind the conspiracies, and the offences committed fell within the category of offences of 'a grave nature'. Lai Chee-ying opted not to appeal against his conviction or sentence. It is such a disgrace for the UK, when being faced with these ironclad facts, to continue to distort the truth and maliciously attack. The HKSAR Government must again firmly refute these claims to set the record straight."
"It is important to reiterate that Lai's case has nothing to do with freedom of the press. One should not conflate criminal acts in Lai's case with freedom of the press. Lai Chee-ying repeatedly colluded with external forces to beg for sanctions and hostile activities against the Central Authorities and the HKSAR Government. It is abundantly clear that Lai Chee-ying, along with other defendants of Lai’s case, used journalism as a guise to commit acts endangering national security."
"On the other hand, the HKSAR Government noticed that certain individuals with ulterior motives have fabricated lies concerning Lai's health and custodial arrangements, and it must be stressed that the Correctional Services Department (CSD) handles the custodial arrangements for Lai Chee-ying in the same way as other persons-in-custody (PICs). Regardless of the identities, ages and nationalities of the PICs, the CSD has all along been ensuring that the custodial environment for each and every PICs is safe, humane, appropriate and healthy, which includes appropriate and timely medical support. The medical services received by Lai Chee-ying in custody are adequate and comprehensive."
"As to the allowing of the appeal by the Court of Appeal regarding the two counts of 'fraud' of Lai Chee-ying mentioned by the so-called report, it must be stressed that Lai Chee-ying has exploited valuable public resources of the HKSAR for over 20 years. Although the Court of Appeal considered that, in the factual context of this case, the breach in question did not reach the criminal conviction threshold for the offence of 'fraud', the objective fact remains that Lai Chee-ying has exploited public resources for private use."
"In respect of the incitement to subversion case of the 'Hong Kong Alliance' mentioned by the so-called report, the verdict handed down by the court is forceful and compelling, as well as well-reasoned and sound. The reasons for verdict clearly emphasised that the defendants were put on trial not because of their political views or beliefs. The court would only consider the laws and evidence relevant to the case to decide whether the prosecution is able to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The court also pointed out that the defendants had all along been hostile towards the Communist Party of China and the Central Government under its leadership, and, after the implementation of the HKNSL, refused to pull back from the brink and were bent on embracing the resistance line to the very end. Even though the defendants knew that what they had said and done might have already gone beyond the scope of lawful freedom of expression, they paid no regard to it. The court reiterated in its reasons for sentence that the HKNSL had no retrospective effect and that the defendants were put on trial not because of their political ideology or their conduct before the HKNSL. They were convicted solely on the basis that they had committed acts prohibited under the HKNSL after the HKNSL came into effect. The court's reasons for sentence have clearly and in detail set out the considerations for sentencing, including reasons for determining that the case falls within the category of 'an offence of a serious nature'."
"Appropriate extraterritorial effect for the offences under the HKNSL and the SNSO fully aligns with the principles of international law, international practice and common practice adopted in various countries and regions. It is both necessary and legitimate, and is also in line with those of other countries and regions around the world. As the law enforcement department of the HKSAR safeguarding national security, the Hong Kong Police are duty-bound to pursue the liability of those who have allegedly endangered national security outside Hong Kong. Those absconders hiding outside Hong Kong are wanted because they continue to blatantly engage in activities endangering national security. Moreover, they continue to collude with external forces to cover for their evil deeds. It is necessary for the Police to take all lawful measures to strongly combat the acts of abscondment, and such actions are fully justified, necessary and legitimate. Quite a number of countries including the UK would also impose measures on wanted criminals to combat the acts of abscondment. It is indeed a demonstration of hypocrisy with double standards by the UK with ulterior motives that, after the HKSAR Government has announced the relevant measures, attack the HKSAR in safeguarding national security dutifully, faithfully and in accordance with the law."
"As to the case regarding the father of an absconder named Anna Kwok Fung-yee being convicted of 'attempting to deal with, directly or indirectly, any funds or other financial assets or economic resources belonging to, or owned or controlled by, a relevant absconder' as mentioned in the so-called report, as stressed in the Reasons for Sentence, the purpose of the relevant offence is to prevent anyone from dealing with the assets of an absconder, thereby increasing the chance of such absconder refusing to return to Hong Kong. The nature of the case was also considered serious, and it was reiterated that no 'collective punishment' is involved in the case and that the sentence has nothing to do with whether the defendant is related to the absconder."
"We noticed that the so-called report mentioned other cases on offences endangering national security. The HKSAR Government has emphasised time and again that as the legal proceedings involving the concerned cases are still ongoing, it is inappropriate for any person to comment on the details of the case in an attempt to interfere with the court to exercise judicial power independently, which might otherwise constitute perverting the course of justice. The UK must stop distorting the truth, blatantly discrediting the judicial system and trials of the HKSAR, in an attempt to glorify criminal behavior and exert pressure on the courts of the HKSAR."
"The HKSAR Government made amendments to the Implementation Rules for Article 43 of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (the Amendment Rules) to enhance measures that the law enforcement authorities of the HKSAR may take and further clarify relevant legal procedures and technical arrangements, so as to strengthen the enforcement power of law enforcement authorities, prevent and investigate cases concerning offences endangering national security more effectively, and prevent and mitigate risks to national security in a timely manner. The making of the Amendment Rules is in conformity with the Basic Law, including the provisions concerning human rights, as well as the relevant provisions under the Hong Kong National Security Law. The Amendment Rules set out stringent requirements by providing in detail under what circumstances the law enforcement authorities can exercise the powers; and incorporating mechanisms with the Judiciary playing the gatekeeping role for various measures introduced by the Amendment Rules, with a view to ensuring that when law enforcement officers carry out various measures, acts and activities endangering national security can be effectively prevented, suppressed and punished, and at the same time the lawful rights and interests of individuals and organizations are adequately protected in accordance with the requirements of Article 4 and Article 5 of the Hong Kong National Security Law."
Safeguarding Due Administration of Justice and Rule of Law
The HKSAR Government spokesman pointed out, "The HKSAR Government safeguards independent judicial power and fully supports the Judiciary in exercising its judicial power independently, safeguarding the due administration of justice and the rule of law. Articles 2, 19 and 85 of the Basic Law specifically provide that the HKSAR enjoys independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication, and the courts of the HKSAR shall exercise judicial power independently, free from any interference. When adjudicating cases concerning offence endangering national security, as in any other cases, judges remain independent and impartial in performing their judicial duties, free from any interference. The implementation of the HKNSL over the past six years or so has proven that the courts have handled all the cases involving the HKNSL and other laws safeguarding national security in the HKSAR strictly in accordance with the above principles."
"The Department of Justice takes charge of criminal prosecutions, free from any interference by virtue of Article 63 of the Basic Law. All prosecutorial decisions are based on an objective analysis of all admissible evidence and applicable laws. In addition, Article 5 of the HKNSL and section 2 of the SNSO clearly stipulate that the principle of the rule of law shall be adhered to in preventing, suppressing and imposing punishment for offences endangering national security."
"The Judiciary exercises judicial power independently in accordance with the law, and everyone charged with a criminal offence has the right to a fair hearing. The courts decide cases strictly in accordance with the evidence and all applicable laws. Cases will never be handled any differently owing to the profession, political beliefs or background of the persons involved. The prosecution has the burden to prove beyond reasonable doubt the commission of an offence before a defendant may be convicted by the court."
"The making of the Safeguarding National Security (Procedural Matters) Regulation (Procedural Matters Regulation) under section 110 of the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance by the HKSAR Government is only to state clearly the classification mechanism under the HKNSL and the SNSO for 'other offences endangering national security under the law of the HKSAR', in order to bring more certainty for relevant provisions of the HKNSL and the SNSO. Neither does the relevant regulation have any retrospective effect, nor creates any new offence or altering the penalty of any offence."
"Regarding the mechanism concerning the certificate to be issued by the Chief Executive under Article 47 of the HKNSL or section 115 of the SNSO, owing to the inherent nature of matters concerning national security, the executive authority is in a far better position than the courts to make appropriate judgements. Hence, the courts will afford deference to the judgements made by the executive authority regarding national security matters. This principle is also a general rule for safeguarding national security practised by different places in the world, including in the UK. In a judgment by the House of Lords in 2003, the Court states that 'Under the constitution of the United Kingdom and most other countries, decisions as to whether something is or is not in the interests of national security are not a matter for judicial decision. They are entrusted to the executive.' The so-called report, however, pays no regard to the fact that the mechanism of the issuing of certificate by the Chief Executive is entirely consistent with common law principles, which we deplore."
Improved Electoral System
A spokesman for the HKSAR Government said, "The Legislative Council (LegCo) formed following the improvement of the electoral system in 2021 has fully implemented the principle of 'patriots administering Hong Kong', which is consistent with the universally prevailing political tenet of keeping political power in the hands of patriots. The LegCo has completely broken free from the past chaos of confrontation, polarisation, disorderly conduct and ineffectiveness in the chamber, returning to the right track of rationality and pragmatism. It deliberated with efficiency and quality, focusing its efforts on developing the economy and improving people's livelihood, ensuring the steady and successful implementation of ‘One Country, Two Systems’. The general election for the eighth term LegCo was successfully held at the end of last year. Voters actively cast their votes, returning a new cohort of LegCo members who are patriotic and love Hong Kong, responsible, capable and committed to serving the community. This has once again exemplified the high-quality and healthy competition under the new electoral system, embodying broad representation and balanced participation. The improved LegCo has proven in practice that this is a democratic electoral system that suits HKSAR's actual circumstances and needs."
The spokesman continued: "As stated in the white paper Hong Kong: Democratic Progress Under the Framework of One Country, Two Systems published by the Central Government, Britain exercised a typical colonial rule over Hong Kong in the past. It did not bring any genuine democracy to Hong Kong; instead, it laid hidden snares for the development of democracy in Hong Kong after its return to China. The British side should recognise the facts and positively view Hong Kong’s democratic development as returning to the right track, as well as the achievements we have made in practising and improving a healthy democratic politics that suits Hong Kong’s actual circumstances and is effective and viable."
Enhancing National Education
The HKSAR Government spokesman pointed out, "Schools are places for students to learn and grow. It is the obligation of schools to provide a safe and orderly school environment and atmosphere, and to maintain a campus free from political interference or illegal activities, for safeguarding students' well-being. National education has been an important part of the curriculum for primary and secondary schools as well as kindergartens, for deepening our students' understanding of the country's development, the history and culture, the Constitution and the Basic Law, as well as national security, thereby building up cultural confidence to foster a sense of national identity, and cultivating them into an able and virtuous new generation with a sense of responsibility, visions and love for the country and the city. Teachers are also important role models of their students, playing a vital role in passing on knowledge and nurturing students' character. The HKSAR Government has the responsibility to ensure the professional conduct of teachers. Implementation of national education, including national security education, is the legitimate duty of education authorities all over the world. Different places attach great importance to implementing national security education and developing their students' sense of national identity, including knowledge of their respective constitution, their own history, culture, geography, etc."
"Academic freedom is an important social value treasured in Hong Kong and the cornerstone of our higher education sector. Since the implementation of the HKNSL, academics or post-secondary education institutions in Hong Kong continue to conduct normal exchange activities with their foreign or external counterparts. Meanwhile, post-secondary institutions in Hong Kong have taken a series of measures to incorporate national security education into students' learning in fulfilment of their statutory duty. These institutions enjoy autonomy on curriculum design, and the HKSAR Government encourages the institutions to provide students with diversified learning opportunities on national security education."
Source: AI-found images
