Ban of Hong Kong separatist party was on ‘compelling’ grounds and proportionate to risks: security minister John Lee
The Post
has obtained Lee’s 20-page letter to the legal teams of Hong Kong
National Party convenor Andy Chan Ho-tin and spokesman Jason Chow
Ho-fai. In it the minister attempts to justify his unprecedented
decision to outlaw a political party
The
government officially banned the pro-independence Hong Kong National
Party on Monday, making it the first political party to be declared
unlawful under the Societies Ordinance.
Secretary
for Security John Lee Ka-chiu said there was “a compelling case to take
preventive action”, describing the ban as “necessary and proportional”
in the interests of national security, public safety and order, and the
protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
The Post
obtained Lee’s 20-page letter to the legal teams of party convenor Andy
Chan Ho-tin and spokesman Jason Chow Ho-fai, in which Lee rebutted
their defence and explained the reasoning behind his decision. Here is a
summary of the arguments from the officer recommending the ban, the
assistant societies officer (ASO), the response from the party (HKNP),
and Lee’s position.
Hong Kong National Party convenor Andy Chan Ho-tin. Photo: Winson Wong
In the interest of national security
ASO:
The HKNP was set up with the clear goal of an independent Hong Kong, in
“blatant violation” of the Basic Law, whose Article 1 states that Hong
Kong is an inalienable part of China.
It
also announced a four-year working plan, made use of a luncheon hosted
by the Foreign Correspondents’ Club on August 14 to escalate its
advocacy to the international level, and called for the US president to
kick China and Hong Kong out of the World Trade Organisation.
HKNP:
The actions were nothing but political expression, or conduct
incidental to such expression. Such peaceful and non-violent advocacy
for change of the constitutional order is firmly within the boundaries
of freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of association and
other fundamental rights.
Chan spoke at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club on August 14. Photo: Bloomberg
Lee:
The evidence clearly shows the HKNP has displayed persistent efforts in
pursuing the aim of Hong Kong independence. It has also been active in
spreading ideas to students and linking up with anti-China and
pro-independence forces overseas, such as those advocating independence
of Tibet, Xinjiang, southern Mongolia and Taiwan.
“The
aim of the HKNP’s international strategy is to weaken China so that
Hong Kong will stand a better chance of becoming independent,” he wrote,
highlighting Chan’s remarks at the FCC lunch and the party’s open
appeal to the US president.
All these actions have gone beyond what is “part of ordinary political activity”.
Members
of the party attend a public forum on independence outside the Cultural
Centre in Tsim Sha Tsui last year. Photo: Jonathan Wong
In the interest of public safety and public order
ASO: The HKNP has indicated on multiple occasions that it would use “whatever effective means”, including the use of force and violence, to achieve its goal.
ASO: The HKNP has indicated on multiple occasions that it would use “whatever effective means”, including the use of force and violence, to achieve its goal.
HKNP:
Andy Chan declared through his lawyer in his Legislative Council
election petition that the HKNP had given up the use of force and
amended its objective to use “lawful and non-violent means” to achieve
its goals. Chan, in response to a question at the FCC lunch on August
14, condemned violence and said the party had never advocated violence.
Lee:
The HKNP has talked about the use of force and violence on numerous
occasions, and its renunciation of force took place only at a few
critical moments without making consequent amendments to its website or
Facebook page.
“It
would be remiss of me to dismiss the repeated statements of the HKNP as
‘political rhetoric’ and the possible effect of such statements on its
followers, who may be motivated to follow suit and cause violence and
public disorder,” he wrote.
Harry's View cartoon for September 25, 2018. Image: Harry Harrison
The
ordinance does not provide that a ban of a society can be issued “only
if it has used or threatened to use force or violence”. The HKNP has
made open declarations that it would resort to all possible means,
including disruptive actions and mobilising strikes.
“If
widespread and coupled with a large sit-in blocking major
thoroughfares, this would likewise cause widespread disruption to Hong
Kong and endanger public safety and public order.”
Even
if the events are not violent, there is a “high-risk” factor of
supporters showing a tendency towards violence given all their previous
advocacy.
In the interest of the protection of the rights and freedoms of others
ASO:
The HKNP has incited hatred towards and discrimination against
mainlanders in Hong Kong, describing them as “enemies who invade and
colonise”.
The Chinese and Hong Kong flags. Photo: EPA
HKNP:
It is within freedom of expression for Chan to express views on the
impact that the large number of migrants from the mainland would have on
the resources of Hong Kong, and express views about a “colonial-like
relationship between Beijing and Hong Kong”.
Lee:
“If the HKNP continues to operate, will this discrimination and hatred
likely grow or reduce among the HKNP’s audience? My assessment, based on
the totality of materials before me, is that it will not reduce.” Such
social opposition, as it grows, may lead to risks and instability that
may undermine public safety or public order.
Comments