HKNP ban on firm legal grounds

Andy Chan Ho-tin, leader of the banned “Hong Kong National Party”, filed a formal appeal with the Chief Executive in Council last Wednesday against the decision by Secretary for Security Lee Ka-chiu to stop the operations of the HKNP in September. Chan revealed the content of the appeal on Monday. The main arguments of the appeal are: First, the HKNP operated as a company under the name C&N Ltd and therefore fell outside the coverage of the Societies Ordinance; and second, the HKNP has never done anything violent or advocated the use of violence to achieve Hong Kong independence. Chan waited until the last day he was allowed to appeal the ban with the CE, in this case the CE in Council, but his arguments are anything but legally sound.

Regarding his argument that the HKNP also went by the name C&N Ltd and therefore was not subject to the Societies Ordinance, the relevant clause in Section 8 of the Societies Ordinance refers to any group, organization, company or society of more than one person, meaning both HKNP and C&N Ltd are subject to Societies Ordinance. Besides, Chan bought the registered company name before the HKNP was officially founded in 2016 but was unable to rename it HKNP Ltd precisely because of its political agenda. That is proof that HKNP and C&N Ltd were one and the same separatist group. Moreover, the HKNP never abandoned the goal of achieving Hong Kong independence by any means necessary, which violates the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. That is why the HKNP was widely known as an illegal group all along.

Chan’s insistence that his party has never used nor intended to use violence to achieve its goal of independence for Hong Kong goes against the facts that HKNP was committed to having Hong Kong made an independent republic by any effective means and it maintained contacts with other separatist groups, including those seeking independence for Taiwan and some other regions of the country. They may have used issues other than independence as excuse to meet and exchange ideas but never sworn off even once the objective of dividing China one way or another. All these facts are grounds for the Secretary for Security’s decision to ban the HKNP for good, citing the Societies Ordinance.

Also, it is illegal to change the HKSAR’s constitutional status by whatever means, because the Basic Law says Hong Kong is an inalienable part of China, period. Some people with ulterior motives have been trying to make the matter all about some basic rights and freedoms instead of what they actually intend to achieve — Hong Kong independence, but apparently they cannot even convince themselves they have the rights and freedom to violate the Basic Law. So, what’s the point of just talk?