What are some of the key legal flashpoints under Hong Kong’s Article 23 law? The Post has answers

Lawmakers have spent seven days in marathon proceedings scrutinising domestic national security bill, before quickly giving green light for proposed changes

Back-to-back meetings have tackled questions on whether residents can keep copies of Apple Daily, offer support to absconding loved ones or swear at security officers

4-MIN READ4-MIN

Lawmakers review the Safeguarding National Security Bill. The coming legislation is mandated by Article 23 of the Basic Law, the city’s mini-constitution. Photo: Dickson Lee

Published: 10:00am, 15 Mar 2024Updated: 11:08am, 15 Mar 2024

Hong Kong lawmakers have spent seven days in marathon proceedings scrutinising a proposed domestic national security law, reviewing the bill’s 181 clauses and quickly giving the green light for amendments floated by the government.

The bill targets treason, insurrection, theft of state secrets and espionage, sabotage endangering national security, and external interference. The coming legislation is mandated by Article 23 of the Basic Law, the city’s mini-constitution.

With lawmakers on Thursday unanimously approving the government’s changes to the bill and days away from writing it into the statute books, the Post takes a look at potential scenarios that have sparked public concern.

Can I keep old copies of Apple Daily?

Speaking on Saturday, lawmaker and Reverend Peter Koon Ho-ming asked ministers if holding on to old issues of the now-defunct tabloid could be considered possession of a seditious publication.

In Hong Kong, the possession of seditious publications is an offence under a law dating back to the colonial period. It will be incorporated into the coming Article 23 law, with the sentence to be raised from one year in jail to three years.

Apple Daily founder Jimmy Lai Chee-ying is currently on trial and facing charges of conspiracy to print and distribute seditious publications, as well as collusion with foreign forces.

While officials speaking during the bill’s review process have avoided naming the tabloid amid Lai’s ongoing trial, they said copies of old publications could be considered seditious in the future regardless of when they were printed.