SECURITY LAW TO BE USED ONLY AS NEEDED, LAM SAYS

Justice chief explains why legislation has not yet been invoked and why ill-founded criticism from abroad must be rebutted proportionately

Hong Kong’s new domestic national security law will be used when “there are really compelling circumstances”, Secretary for Justice Paul Lam Ting-kwok has said as he rejected suggestions that it not be invoked immediately to “make people feel more comfortable”.

But he conceded that in responding to criticisms of the law, which turns a month old tomorrow, the tone of official “rebuttals” should be proportionate and authorities must not let things “get lost in translation”.

So far, the new legislation has not been applied to any arrests, in stark contrast to the Beijingimposed national security law that netted several people in the first few weeks of its enactment, but this was not out of a desire to assuage concerns but because the circumstances were very different now, Lam said.

In an exclusive interview with the Post, the secretary for justice also hinted that even though the new law’s most immediate impact had been the denial of early release of those convicted of national security crimes, correctional authorities could still exercise discretion.

“If any prisoner behaves properly, if they do not act in a way that causes us concern, I’m still very confident that the discretion will be exercised in his or her favour,” he said.

The Safeguarding National Security Ordinance took effect on March 23 after an expedited legislation process – the bill cleared the legislature and was signed into law in just over three weeks after authorities concluded a one-month public consultation exercise.

The domestic law’s first month in effect has been marked by relative calm compared with the initial imposition of the Beijingdecreed national security law, which led to 15 individuals being detained in the first month.

Lam said it “might not be entirely appropriate” to compare the first months of the two pieces of legislation, as the first security law was born out of the need to stem the “chaos” from the social unrest that had rocked Hong Kong the previous year.

Since the 2020 national security law came into force, the state of human rights in Hong Kong had become “healthier and more balanced” because those who supported the government could now express their views without fear of being doxxed or abused, he said.

“Returning to the present ordinance, I’m very sure that we all agree that the situation is very different. We have restored, basically, peace and order,” he said.

“The principle is that the law has to be used if it’s necessary because otherwise, it’s a useless piece of paper. It applies to all sorts of legislation, in particular criminal statutes.

“They should be used cautiously, and only if it is really strictly necessary when there is sufficient evidence to justify the use of the legislation.”

All prosecution decisions under the new law require written consent from the secretary. Lam said it was “not a question whether

The principle is that the law has to be used if it’s necessary because otherwise, it’s a useless piece of paper PAUL LAM, SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

using [the law] less would make people feel more comfortable”, rejecting suggestions from some business chambers that limiting its use initially would allay any unease about its reach and scope.

Instead, he argued that the law itself should deter people from committing unlawful acts, thereby reducing the need to invoke it.

On the criticisms of the new law from overseas and at home, Lam said the tone of the “rebuttals” by the city’s authorities should be in proportion to the severity of the accusation, and conceded that “very often things can somehow get lost in translation”.

Asked about the right of the chief executive to introduce subsidiary legislation “for the needs of” safeguarding national security under the new law – a move that had sparked concerns of overreach – Lam said there was “no concrete plan or decision” as to what sort of sub-laws ought to be made.

The ordinance, mandated by Article 23 of the Basic Law, the city’s mini-constitution, has attracted critical scrutiny from countries such as the United States and Britain, which has always led to strongly worded rebuttals from Hong Kong officials.

In response to the US Hong Kong Policy Act report, for example, the city government issued a statement that called the report’s contents “absurd and false”, and said the US authorities’ “bullying act and hypocrisy with double standards are utterly ugly and despicable”.

The justice chief said such statements in rebuttal were a necessity because silence could be misconstrued as “a sort of admission” while the damage of misleading and unfair comments circulating in public could spiral out of control.

“It’s very important for us to issue a timely rebuttal. OK. So the question is how,” he said. “The important point, at least from my personal point of view, is that in order for a rebuttal to serve its intended purpose, it has to be persuasive, it has to be convincing. A rebuttal has to be proportional and rational that the language, the tone that you use must be proportional to the severity of the accusation,” said Lam, who felt it was “a matter of opinion” whether the tone in past rebuttals to the criticism of the new law was aggressive.

He said it was important to support the government responses with rational arguments: “We have to persuade people that we are not being emotional, we are not being hot-tempered or something, or anything like that. We are upset for very good reasons, and we have to tell people why.”

But he was aware of the concern that when a Chineselanguage statement was translated into English, “very often things can somehow get lost in translation” especially when readers do not share the same cultural background.

Lam said he had been mindful of the observations made by others over the language of the rebuttals, but stressed that the city government had no control over how frequently these statements needed to be made as they had to be “responsive”.

“I’m afraid that we are at the receiving end. I hate to do rebuttals,” he said. “If there’s no false statement or misleading allegation against us, there’s no rebuttal.”