Existing laws available for banning the separatist group
It is the wisdom of the designer of the “one country, two systems” principle to require that laws previously in force in Hong Kong should be maintained except for those that contravene the Basic Law. The subsequent logic to follow will likely be that even if the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region has not enacted a national security law — according to Article 23 of the Basic Law — to prohibit offenses against national security for one reason or another; the existing laws may be invoked to serve the same purpose under the principle of the rule of law.
If I remember correctly, when former justice secretary Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung was asked two years ago about how the Hong Kong National Party issue could be dealt with, he said the Department of Justice was tapping into four legal sources — the Companies Ordinance, Societies Ordinance, Crime Ordinance and others. The government is doing something worthwhile for national security and public order under the principle of “one country, two systems”.
Secretary for Security John Lee Ka-chiu has notified HKNP convener Chan Ho-tin that the unregistered political group could be banned as recommended by the assistant societies officer with the Hong Kong Police Force who reasonably believed such an action necessary in the interests of national security or public safety, public order or protection of the rights and freedoms of others, as rendered in Section 8(1)(a) of Societies Ordinance.
Any rational person would agree with the societies officer’s observation: HKNP has been openly promoting six illegal agendas, including establishing “a free and independent Republic of Hong Kong”; abolishing the Basic Law and garnishing support for “Hong Kong’s independence” and building the power for “self-determination”.
The group asserted it would resort to whatever effective means to push for “Hong Kong’s independence”, including fielding candidates in elections. Actually Chan himself attempted to participate in the 2016 Legislative Council election but was disqualified for his failure to sign a declaration to uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the HKSAR of the People’s Republic of China as required by law.
It appears the group has not only advocated separatism but put their illegal ideas into action; they have tried to rally some like-minded forces to subvert the central government.
For example, Chan attended a forum on “Hong Kong independence” on July 1 in Taipei. Chan claimed the Basic Law is illegitimate and his attempt for its abolition is only an exercise of his civil and political rights. The group has also occasionally held unauthorized public gatherings for illegal purposes.
Some sympathizers argued that it was premature for the security secretary to ban the HKNP as it has not been registered in Hong Kong under the Societies Ordinance. Such an argument does not hold water.
It was reported that HKNP had registered in London. By virtue of Section 4 of the Societies Ordinance, a society shall be deemed established in Hong Kong even if it has been organized and has its headquarters or chief place of business outside Hong Kong, as long as any of its office-bearers or members reside in Hong Kong or are present therein or any person in Hong Kong manages or assists in the management of that society. Therefore, the Hong Kong government may treat HKNP as an organization under the Societies Ordinance even though it was registered in London.
HKNP has not registered as a legal entity under any local ordinance but fielded a member to participate in the 2016 Legislative Council election. For this reason, it can be classified as a political group. Since HKNP registered in London, it can be classified as a foreign political group as well; such political groups shall be prohibited from conducting any political activity in the SAR, as expressly stipulated in Article 23 of the Basic Law.
The government may need to study what it can do with HKNP if Chan de-registers it in London. But regardless of its registration, the illegal status of HKNP won’t be changed. But any legal action against Chan would probably be more difficult.