Letters | Hong Kong national security law’s chilling effect on freedom of speech is real

While the justice secretary has said that whether slogan-chanting is illegal will depend on the circumstances and be determined by the courts, many people are likely to think twice about speaking up, even if the criticism is constructive

Hong Kong national security law (NSL)

Letters

Published: 7:15am, 12 Jul 2020

Why you can trust SCMP

In the wake of the promulgation of the sweeping national security law for Hong Kong, there has been heated debate over whether chanting independence slogans could constitute an offence under the legislation. So far, the secretary for justice has given a clear-as-mud reply about the prospect of being convicted when found shouting such slogans. To put it simply, there is no single answer as different circumstances have to be factored in, such as the suspect’s intention and physical action.

Under common law safeguards, it is seemingly difficult to jail a person for a “speech crime”. The mere utterance of words such as “End one-party rule!” would not necessarily lead to prosecution. Practically, our freedom of speech remains largely intact as long as we don’t blatantly charge the red line, namely the endorsement of independence. Members of the opposition camp could still exercise their right to air grievances against the government.

Unfortunately, the deep public distrust towards the local administration, the unrestricted power wielded by prosecutors and an increasingly sensitive Beijing have created a chilling effect in Hong Kong. Freedom-loving people could hardly express their views without constraint, for fear of courting controversy.

Even if the law’s bark is a lot worse than its bite, the thought of being arrested and tried in court could be fearsome enough to deter some from speaking their mind.

05:50

What you should know about China's new national security law for Hong Kong

In the face of a resource-rich authority equipped with overriding investigative power, powerless citizens could only find themselves in an unfavourable position when defending themselves in court.

It is therefore reasonable to infer that high-profile critics will pay a heavy price for being a thorn in the government’s side. When a person feels uneasy about speaking up and tends to think twice, it would be ludicrous to argue that the status quo could be maintained.

Gary Lam, Sheung Shui

Anson Chan’s retirement is a sad sign of new era for Hong Kong

Former Hong Kong chief secretary Anson Chan Fang On-sang is a very farsighted, politically mature and dedicated woman (“Hong Kong’s former No 2 official Anson Chan steps back from public life”, June 26). We are fortunate to have had her guidance. She spent her life dedicated to the development of democracy and progress of Hong Kong. But unfortunately, her good deeds have been ignored by our supreme leaders.

Chan retired from politics recently. She probably knows the days of Hong Kong as we know it are numbered. The year 2047 seems to have arrived early.

Having said that, our youngsters are a bit impatient and immature, and some of their acts and demands were unreasonable and not in the interests of the country at present or in the future.

If Chan remained politically active, she would have lived in fear of persecution and with the stress of being arrested at any time, given how broad the purview of the newly introduced national security law is. One now has to be cautious when criticising the administration, whether constructively or not.

Our freedom of the press, speech and expression will now be limited or permitted only if approved by mainland authorities. Hongkongers will not be able to keep making demands, but will have to be satisfied like people on the mainland.

A.L. Nanik, Tsim Sha Tsui

Could books really threaten national security?

It makes me sad to read about libraries and schools removing books that are deemed to somehow threaten national security (“Hong Kong schools told to remove books that might fall foul of the legislation”, July 6). A truly strong and powerful country and leader can withstand criticism, encourage open dialogue, want an engaged citizenry that reads widely, thinks openly and broadly, and pushes the government to be its best and serve the people and the nation.

Does cracking down on peaceful protests, classifying speech that questions the government as unlawful and banning books and written materials that present a variety of view points make Hong Kong feel more secure?

Lee Strauss, Tai Tam

Post