The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government has denounced the UK’s “Six-monthly report on Hong Kong: July to December 2024”, stating that it contains the slanders and smears about various aspects of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
In a statement, the Hong Kong SAR Government said it condemned and rejected the UK’s misleading and irresponsible remarks, which it labelled “despicable political maneouvres” intended to interfere in Hong Kong’s law-based governance.
It added that the Sino-British Joint Declaration is about China’s resumption of sovereignty over Hong Kong, and that the UK has no sovereignty, jurisdiction or right of supervision over Hong Kong following the city’s return to the motherland.
It urged the UK to discern facts from fallacies, respect international law and the basic norms governing international relations, and stop interfering in Hong Kong matters, stressing that these are purely China’s internal affairs.
The Hong Kong SAR Government said the report contained “absurd and false contents” with regard to the laws safeguarding national security in the Hong Kong SAR. It outlined that the UK Government had vilified Hong Kong’s law enforcement agencies, and its prosecutorial and judicial authorities, in claiming that fulfillment of their duties constituted an “erosion of rights and freedoms”.
It also emphasised that Hong Kong law enforcement agencies’ actions are evidence-based and are taken in strict accordance with the law in respect of acts committed by people or entities, having nothing to do with their political views, background or occupation. It added that any suggestion that certain individuals or organisations should be immune from legal consequences for their illegal acts totally runs contrary to the spirit of the rule of law.
The statement highlighted that absconders hiding in the UK and other western countries are wanted and subject to arrest warrants issued by Hong Kong courts not because they “exercised freedom of expression”, but because they continue to blatantly engage in activities endangering national security. These activities include inciting secession and requesting that foreign countries engage in hostile activities against the Peoples Republic of China and the Hong Kong SAR. The statement outlined that it is therefore necessary to take all lawful measures, including “specified measures” under the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, to combat acts of abscondment.
Stressing that time was given for the absconders to return to Hong Kong to face law enforcement and legal proceedings before the measures were taken, the Hong Kong SAR Government said the absconders failed to do so.
It added that all “specified measures”, including the cancellation of Hong Kong SAR passports, align with human rights requirements, and that countries such as the UK would impose the same measures on wanted criminals.
It said that the UK had demonstrated hypocrisy and that its unwarranted and inappropriate comments on criminal proceedings which are ongoing in Hong Kong courts betrayed a complete disregard for the rule of law.
Separately, the Hong Kong SAR Government said that non-referral of a prisoner who has committed an offence endangering national security to the Post-release Supervision Board is a preventive measure that does not of itself increase the prisoner’s sentence and should not be regarded as punishment.
It explained that in deciding whether an early release would be contrary to the interests of national security, the Commissioner of Correctional Services will carry out his duties in strict accordance with the law and deal with every case fairly and impartially.
The Hong Kong SAR Government underscored that the rule of law in Hong Kong is strong and robust and can stand the test of time, adding that the city’s common law system will not be changed because of the departure of individual overseas non-permanent judges.
It also stressed that the mechanisms for safeguarding national security in the city do not undermine independent judicial power, and that the city’s judicial system continues to be protected by the Basic Law. It said that when adjudicating cases concerning offences endangering national security, as in any other cases, judges remain independent, impartial and free from any interference in performing their judicial duties.
