Legal experts raise concerns over ‘vague’ intent conditions in Hong Kong’s domestic national security law, but others assure burden of proof will be high
- ‘I’m worried that the proposed Article 23 legislation, with its vague references to intent, could be misused,’ executive director of Asia Law Centre at Georgetown University says
- Use of the word ‘intent’ has been backed up by countless legal precedents, notes lawmaker and former security chief Lai Tung-kwok
Hong Kong’s coming domestic national security law will consider “intent” as a key factor in determining violations, raising concerns among some legal and political science scholars who say the term in the proposal is “ambiguous” and may give judges significant leeway in interpretation, but others assure there will be a high burden of proof.
The government’s 110-page consultation paper on legislation required under Article 23 of the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s mini-constitution repeatedly mentions “intentions” which could endanger national security.
The proposal seeks to outlaw five new types of offences: treason; insurrection, incitement to mutiny and disaffection, and acts with seditious intention; sabotage; foreign interference; theft of state secrets and espionage.
According to the consultation paper, released on Tuesday, theft of state secrets targets those who acquire, possess and disclose any information that contains a state secret and with intent to endanger national security without official approval.
Authorities proposed expanding the scope of offences related to seditious intention to also cover, among other things, bringing a Chinese citizen, local resident or a person in Hong Kong into hatred or contempt against the central and local authorities, as well as inciting anyone to commit unlawful acts.
They also suggested improving existing offences to curb acts of espionage and collusion with external elements “with the intent to endanger national security”, with the condition also used to determine treason and insurrection offences.
But the paper stopped short of spelling out what constituted intent that would endanger national security.