Speech, letter grounds to ban HKNP, police say

A public speech advocating Hong Kong independence delivered by Andy Chan Ho-tin, convener of the Hong Kong National Party, and his open letter to the president of United States added to the possibility of a proposed ban on the party, according to a letter issued by the city’s assistant societies officer.

Attached in a Facebook post of the HKNP on Thursday, the letter was issued a day earlier by Rebecca Lam Hiu-tong to John Lee Ka-chiu, the city’s secretary for security, to provide additional information in further support of her previous recommendation to ban the party’s operation on national security grounds.

In the letter, Lam wrote that the recent two events, referring to Chan’s talk at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club and the letter issued by the party to Donald Trump, “would further support the recommendation”.

It was evident from Chan’s speech that HKNP remains firmly committed to its objective of Hong Kong independence, which threatens the national security of China, according to the letter.

Besides reiterating the ultimate goal during the speech, Chan also admitted that the party had strived for the goal by various means and actions, Lam noted in the letter.

Meanwhile, the party’s antipathy toward mainland people in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, as elaborated in Chan’s speech, reinforced the point that its operation poses a threat to the rights and freedoms of mainland people in Hong Kong.

To create favorable conditions for their separatism goal, the party, in the letter to Trump, also urged the US to push for the revocation of HKSAR and China’s respective memberships of the World Trade Organization so that the US could truly “deal an economic blow to China”, according to the letter.

Barrister Ronny Tong Ka-wah agreed with Lam that

the two events provided more reasons for the possible prohibition of the party due to their violations of the city’s Societies Ordinance.

Under Section 8 of the ordinance, a group can be banned in the interests of national security or public safety, public order or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Noting that advocating Hong Kong independence will absolutely endanger national security, Tong also reckoned the negative comments against mainland people in Hong Kong from Chan’s speech is an encroachment of their rights.

The malicious remarks may also incite hatred among local people in the SAR against their mainland compatriots, thus any conflicts between the two groups may be further intensified, which may also disrupt the public order in Hong Kong.

Chan’s call for the revocation of HKSAR’s WTO membership as well as a tariff sanction on the SAR will also harm the benefits and rights of local people in the city, Tong added.

Citing the city’s Crimes Ordinance, legal expect Song Sio-chong believes the public speech delivered by Chan could be regarded as new evidence to ban the HKNP.

Chan’s antipathy toward mainland people in Hong Kong, which may help create a hostile environment in Hong Kong society, may have formed a seditious intention, according to Song, professor at Shenzhen University’s Research Center of Hong Kong and Macao Basic Law.

According to Section 9 and 10 of the Crimes Ordinance, any intention to promote feelings of ill will and enmity between different groups of the population of Hong Kong could be called a seditious intention.

Conviction on a first offense of any act with seditious intention can result in a fine of HK$5,000 and two years’ imprisonment. A subsequent offense can result in imprisonment for three years.