Article 23 has come into effect, and already been wielded

  

The kind of bookstore I wish could flourish in Hong Kong

 

Article 23 came into force last Saturday (March 23rd, 2024).  Even before it came into effect, yet another wave of fear had swept Hong Kong -- and with it, announcement of store closures and such.  Although pro-democracy/free speech Mount Zero bookstore announced its upcoming closure (at the end of March; i.e., this Sunday) some weeks back, it clearly is a victim of the double whammy that's Article 23 and the National Security Law China imposed on Hong Kong on June 30th, 2020.

 

Over the weekend, I visited another of Hong Kong's remaining independent bookstores.  Even while some books that clearly showed its pro-democracy/free speech credentials remained on display, a staffer told me that they were other books that they had removed some others from their shelves while they waited to see where the new "red lines" were being drawn.  Put another way: they were anticipating that the "red lines" would be further tightened and there be less space for free speech and such in the city; and also waiting, like other Hong Kongers, to see Article 23 being wielded against people.

I must admit that a part for me was imagining horrors like mass arrests taking place at the stroke of midnight or pre-dawn on Saturday -- and was already counting my blessings later that day and Sunday that nothing directly Article 23 related had happened over the first 48 hours or so.  On Monday evening, however, I heard rumblings that something untoward had happened involving a jailed activist-protestor; and confirmation came along yesterday that Ma Chun-man had been denied the early release from prison that his family and friends who went to wait for him to come out of the Tong Fuk Correctional Institution on Monday thought he would be given.

 

Known as Captain America 2.0 (because he often dressed up as the Marvel superhero during the 2019 pro-democracy protests), "Ma was convicted in 2021 for inciting secession and was initially sentenced to five years and nine months.  He appealed and the sentence was reduced to five years due to good behavior, earning him a one-third remission".

 

All this was before Article 23 came into effect, however.  And "While the city's law stipulates eligible prisoners can be released before their term ends, the new security law allows the government to deny such rights."  Which is what happened; making Ma the first known case of an individual denied freedom and penalised under Article 23.

Some further details from the Nikkei Asia article reporting this: "Ma Chun-man, a former delivery man who was found guilty of inciting secession on at least 20 occasions in public and on social media between August and November 2020. Ma was accused of chanting slogans advocating independence from China." Read that again: he CHANTED SLOGANS. (In other words, we are talking about speech crimes.)

 

Quoting again from the Nikkei Asia piece: "The new security law is more comprehensive than one that was imposed by Beijing in June 2020 to punish secession, subversion, terrorist activities and collusion with a foreign country or external forces that endangered national security. The new law includes treason, insurrection, theft of state secrets, sabotage against public infrastructure, including computer systems, and external interference in domestic affairs."  

 

At the same time, it's worth noting that Hong Kong's Basic Law also includes the following Articles:

Article 27:  Hong Kong residents shall have freedom of speech, of the press and of publication; freedom of association, of assembly, of procession and of demonstration; and the right and freedom to form and join trade unions, and to strike.

 

Article 28:  The freedom of the person of Hong Kong residents shall be inviolable.

No Hong Kong resident shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful arrest, detention or imprisonment. Arbitrary or unlawful search of the body of any resident or deprivation or restriction of the freedom of the person shall be prohibited. Torture of any resident or arbitrary or unlawful deprivation of the life of any resident shall be prohibited.

Article 29:  The homes and other premises of Hong Kong residents shall be inviolable. Arbitrary or unlawful search of, or intrusion into, a resident's home or other premises shall be prohibited.

Article 30:  The freedom and privacy of communication of Hong Kong residents shall be protected by law. No department or individual may, on any grounds, infringe upon the freedom and privacy of communication of residents except that the relevant authorities may inspect communication in accordance with legal procedures to meet the needs of public security or of investigation into criminal offences.

It remains to be seen though how strongly they will be upheld, especially vis a vis Article 23.  So, please, don't look away from what's happening in Hong Kong -- the original title of Humans Right Watch's Acting China Director Maya Wang's piece in the New York Times which bemoans, among other things, that "visitors to Hong Kong often fail to recognize the transformations taking place beneath the enduring glitz of the city", and cites a recent Pew Research Center survey having found that "more than 80 percent of Hong Kongers still want democracy, however remote that possibility looks today".