Definition of ‘external forces’ in Hong Kong’s domestic security bill should be precise
- The danger of the broad wording is that Hongkongers may shun international engagement at time when the city needs more not less
Hong Kong’s international ties and multicultural environment are the lifeblood of the city. Meetings with foreign diplomats, visiting politicians, businesspeople, academics and members of international organisations have, for many residents, long been an integral part of daily life.
Such gatherings provide valuable opportunities for views to be freely exchanged, friendships formed and greater understanding forged.
Those involved often hold strong views. They may or may not agree with this or that government policy. But they all share a passion for Hong Kong and want what is best for the city. They consider themselves stakeholders.
That vibrant environment has, sadly, come under pressure in recent years amid tensions between China and the West.
The city is, however, well aware that it desperately needs to maintain its international vibe as it seeks to attract talent, tourists and investment while acting as China’s “superconnector”.
That is why the government needs to tread very carefully with the “external forces” component of its new domestic security law.
The definition of “external force” is sweeping. It begins with the government of a foreign country. No problem there. But it goes on to refer to “the authority of a region or place of an external place”. What does that even mean?
The definition of external force includes international organisations, which are also described in broad terms, including “entities entrusted with functions by any country, region or place”. Executive councillor Jeffrey Lam Kin-fung has, understandably, asked whether chambers of commerce might fall within the definition.
Organisations in an “external place” that “pursue political ends” are also considered external forces. That could include almost anything. Non-governmental organisations campaigning on environmental or social welfare issues might conceivably be said to be pursuing political ends.
But that is not all. Companies and individuals might be regarded as external forces, too, if “related” to entities falling within the definition.
What is a related individual? According to the bill, it is a person who is accustomed or under an obligation to act in accordance with the directions, instructions or wishes of the entity concerned.
Am I an external force? I live in England. I abide by the country’s laws. Might that be construed as “being accustomed to act in accordance with the wishes” of a foreign government?
Many Hong Kong residents, especially those working for companies or belonging to organisations with foreign ties will be asking similar questions.
The government has offered reassurance, pointing out that merely being an “external force” is not, in itself, a crime. Presumably, it intends the law to target state actors intent on committing serious acts.
But the danger of this broad, catch-all, wording is that it will worry people and cause them to shun possible “external forces” at a time when Hong Kong needs more international engagement, not less.
Careful consideration should be given to feedback on security laws
The new “external interference” offence requires collaboration with an external force, but mere cooperation would be enough. Only those who act with an intention to interfere in some way in China’s affairs or those of Hong Kong would commit the offence, such as by seeking to influence the legislative council or the courts.
But an intention to influence the making or execution of any government policy, measure or “any other decision” is also covered. It is extraordinarily broad.
Thankfully, there also has to be “improper conduct”, such as using or threatening violence against a person or damaging their property. This narrows it down.
But even these categories are quite broad, including damaging a person’s reputation or causing them financial loss.
There is clearly a determination to pass the bill as soon as possible. Time must, however, be allowed for sufficient scrutiny by lawmakers and the government should be willing to listen to feedback, tightening up the law.
It is possible to safeguard national security while also cherishing and protecting Hong Kong’s international ties. Don’t kill the goose which has, over the years, provided the city with so many golden eggs.
