Hong Kong legal experts see free speech threat in colonial-era law’s ‘vague’ language, as national security unit’s decision to handle activist’s case splits lawmakers

Former HKU law school dean, current lecturer argue law’s wording leaves ‘little room for freedom of speech’, a point contested by former Bar chief

Powerful new police unit’s decision to pursue case despite lack of national security law charges also prompts questions in some quarters

5-MIN READ5-MIN

Hong Kong activist Tam Tak-chi was arrested on Sunday on charges of sedition. Photo: AFP

Published: 2:15pm, 7 Sep 2020Updated: 11:07pm, 7 Sep 2020

The use of a broad, colonial-era law to arrest an opposition activist over “seditious” remarks has placed Hong Kong’s freedom of speech under threat, legal experts have warned.

The scholars’ concerns emerged on Monday as lawmakers found themselves divided over whether the police force’s powerful new national security unit should have dropped the case after concluding it did not have enough evidence to pursue charges under the legislation for which it was named.

Tam Tak-chi, a leading figure in localist group People Power, was arrested on Sunday by members of the recently formed unit on suspicion of uttering seditious words at street booths he operated across the city between June and August.

Under section 10 of Hong Kong’s Crimes Ordinance, anyone who commits acts with seditious intent or utters seditious words can be fined HK$5,000 (US$645) and jailed for two years on their first offence.

Eric Cheung Tat-ming, principal lecturer at the law school of the University of Hong Kong (HKU), on Monday said the law’s language was broad and hard to understand, leaving room for many words and phrases to fall afoul of the offence.

Activist Tam Tak-chi set up street booths across Hong Kong in June and August, where he gave out face masks and criticised the government. Photo: Facebook

“If the interpretation is so loose, it is difficult to meet the requirements of human rights protection, because it will inevitably impact freedom of speech,” he said. “Just because freedom is not absolute does not mean you can use a vague law to deprive people of those freedoms.”