Civil rights groups warn UN body that Hong Kong national security law limits ability to highlight fears about freedom in the city overseas
- A total of 19 of 22 submissions to UN human rights committee on Hong Kong national security law come from overseas NGOs
- Just two NGO staff, both now living outside Hong Kong, attend Geneva UN meeting in person compared to at least 12 nine years ago
Civil rights campaigners warned on Tuesday that Hong Kong’s national security law had damaged their ability to raise concerns on the international stage as the United Nations’ human rights committee wrapped up a three-day review of the situation in the city by grilling officials over freedom of expression and assembly.
A total of 19 of the 22 submissions to the committee warned of the erosion of human rights in Hong Kong since the law came into force and were filed by NGOs based elsewhere.
The other three, submitted by Hong Kong-based legal groups, suggested the national security law was in line with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, an international treaty which is being examined at the UN’s review session.
Just two NGO representatives, both no longer based in Hong Kong, attended the proceedings in person in Geneva, compared to at least a dozen at the last review in 2013.
One Hong Kong-based NGO staff member, who asked not to be named, said that even though attending the review might not fall under the scope of the national security law, NGOs and their partners could still face a backlash from Chinese state media.
UN representatives had already taken the unusual step of asking Hong Kong officials on the first and second days for assurances that NGOs who made a submission on the national security law would not be prosecuted.
The representatives repeated the call on Tuesday and the government again declined to give a commitment.
“Normal interactions and activities are already protected by the Basic Law and the laws of Hong Kong. And what Hong Kong’s national security law seeks to punish, prevent or suppress are distinctly different from normal interactions,” said the city’s Deputy Secretary for Security Apollonia Liu Lee Ho-kei.
She added it was “impossible” for her to generalise on whether a civil society group that communicated with the UN would fall under the definition of foreign political organisation under the city’s Societies Ordinance because it depended on the facts, circumstances and activities of the body in question.
Solicitor General Llewellyn Mui Kei-fat of the Department of Justice said it was “not easy” for a normal person or organisation to breach the collusion section of the law.
But UN Human Rights Committee member Carlos Gomez Martinez of Spain slammed the “vague” response.
“‘If we conduct ourselves normally, nothing would happen’ – I think the response is insufficient,” he said.
UN representatives used the last day of the session to quiz the Hong Kong delegation, led by Secretary for Mainland and Constitutional Affairs Erick Tsang Kwok-wai on a virtual basis, about a range of civil rights topics, from press and academic freedoms as well as assemblies and elections.
The 19 overseas NGOs which filed their submissions between May and June this year – almost two years since the national security law was implemented – focused on the legislation and sedition offence.
They highlighted concerns over judicial independence, the right to a fair trial and the issue of pre-trial detention.
The NGOs, mostly from Britain and the US, also discussed religious and labour rights.
The three Hong Kong-based groups, which backed the city’s authorities, were Lawyers HK, the Hong Kong and Mainland Legal Profession Association and the Asian Academy of International Law, a group co-founded by former chief justice Teresa Cheng Yeuk-wah and property tycoon Henry Cheng Kar-shun.
The Hong Kong Human Rights Information Centre and the Hong Kong Rule of Law Monitor, both based overseas, wrote in their submission: “Shortly after the joint submission was made, the national security law was imposed on Hong Kong. The free environment enabling civil society organisations was thus destroyed.”
Chakra Ip, from The 29 Principles, a UK-based organisation that supports lawyers facing human rights oppression, said it was “possible” the Hong Kong government could retaliate against NGOs who had made submissions.
But the UK-based activist vowed to fight on.
“I will not stop voicing out the human rights issues in HK and China because of the possible retaliation,” she said.
Simon Cheng Man-kit, a former employee of the British consulate in Hong Kong, was one of the two who attended the session in person. He was granted asylum in the UK after he was detained by mainland authorities in 2019.
Cheng said: “The national security law would only make all real voices from the civil society, which is independent from the government, no longer heard due to the potential state reprisal, while leaving leeway for Chinese government-controlled NGOs and its pro-government voices to occupy the UN arena on human rights.”
A Security Bureau spokesman said the national security law gave clear definitions of what constituted an offence.
“Hong Kong, as an international city, has close interactions and contacts with other countries, regions and relevant international organisations. Such normal interactions are protected under the Basic Law and local laws of Hong Kong,” he said.
