Previous Articles Sections Next

Who decides what justice looks like in Hong Kong?

The secretary for security in the government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region responds to the Editorial Board.

By Letters to the Editor | 2024-03-21

Jimmy Lai, center, exits his building to go for exercise at the Stanley prison in Hong Kong on Aug. 4. (Louise Delmotte/AP, File)

Regarding the March 11 editorial, "Hong Kong doubles down on repression":

We strongly oppose and condemn the Editorial Board's recent remarks, which we believe conveyed a misleading impression of the security situation in Hong Kong. As the legal proceedings involving Jimmy Lai and the 47 individuals charged with "conspiracy to commit subversion" are ongoing, it was inappropriate for any person to comment on the details of the cases. As the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government has reiterated repeatedly, all cases, including these proceedings, are handled strictly on the basis of evidence and in accordance with the law. All defendants will receive fair trials strictly in accordance with laws applicable to the HKSAR, including the national security law, and as protected by the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights.

The Editorial Board's suggestion for what "the only plausible, credible verdict" should be was thus grossly inappropriate. Instead of respecting the exercise of independent judicial power by the HKSAR courts, The Post's assertion was a blatant interference with the administration of justice.

The board also neglected to acknowledge the constitutional duty lawmakers had to enact the Basic Law Article 23 legislation replacing part of the British legal code, something that the HKSAR had not fulfilled for more than 26 years after its return to the motherland. The new law, which will go into effect on Saturday, stipulates that one of the fundamental principles in legislating for safeguarding national security is to respect and protect human rights, and it provides for clear elements of offense, target and scope. There are corresponding or similar provisions overseas for offenses mentioned in the editorial.

The HKSAR will continue to resolutely discharge the responsibility of safeguarding national security, and it will effectively prevent, suppress and impose punishment for acts and activities that endanger national security in accordance with the law, while safeguarding the rights and freedoms enjoyed by Hong Kong people.

Tang Ping-keung, Hong Kong

The author is the secretary for security in the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

When I arrived at Hong Kong's Fenwick Pier in January 1960, the former British colony was a magnificent spectacle to behold. Little did it occur to me, from my vantage point in the then-British territory, that China was still amid Mao's disastrous Great Leap Forward. Now, decades later, the repression that marked those fateful years in China has come to Hong Kong.

As The Post pointed out in its March 11 editorial, the line that once distinguished Hong Kong from the mainland has been imperceptible since the passing of the national security law in 2020. The 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration, which promised Hong Kong citizens and the world that the city would have legal continuity until 2047, isn't worth the paper it's written on. Meanwhile, the fate of Hong Kong's 47 political prisoners hangs in the balance.

Brian Stuckey, Denver


This article was downloaded by calibre from https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/03/21/hong-kong-article-23-jimmy-lai/


Previous Articles Sections Next