Hong Kong’s second national security law passed on Tuesday has been criticized by foreign governments, while some business people say the law will speed up the departure of foreign companies from the city.
The United Nations, the United States, Britain and the European Union have raised concerns about the law’s vague language and its speedy passage in less than two weeks.
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk warned that vague provisions in the bill, also known as Article 23, could lead to the criminalization of freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and the right to receive and impart information, These rights are protected by international human rights law.
Meanwhile, the U.S. State Department said passage of Article 23 could accelerate the shutdown of a once open society, adding that the U.S. was analyzing the law’s potential impact.
British Foreign Secretary David Cameron said the law failed to provide “certainty for international organizations operating in Hong Kong, including diplomatic missions” and would contribute to the “culture of self-censorship” that currently dominates Hong Kong’s social and political landscape. City.
In addition to reiterating its concerns about the law’s potential impact on the fundamental rights and freedoms of Hong Kong people, the EU said the bill’s increased penalties, extraterritorial reach and partial retroactive application were “also deeply concerning”.
Despite international criticism, Hong Kong Chief Executive John Lee praised the passage of Article 23 as a “historic moment for Hong Kong”, while the Chinese government expressed its “full support” for the development.
Rights activists call for sanctions
While they welcomed concerns expressed by foreign governments, some human rights activists urged democracies to respond with stronger measures.
Benedict Rogers, chief executive of British NGO Hong Kong Watch, said: “With the enactment of Section 23 legislation, now is the time to impose sanctions on officials such as Hong Kong Chief Executive John Lee.”
The United States is the only country to impose sanctions on Hong Kong and Chinese officials, 24 in total, since Hong Kong imposed a controversial national security law in 2020 and detained dozens of pro-democracy activists and politicians.
Rogers said the British government remains reluctant to impose sanctions on Chinese officials due to the deteriorating situation in Hong Kong because the UK does not want to damage trade relations with China.
“[While] They have imposed sanctions on some Chinese officials for human rights abuses in Xinjiang, but they have not taken similar action against Hong Kong,” he told VOA by phone.
While the United States has rolled out a number of tools to counter China’s tightening control over Hong Kong, including sanctions, new legislation banning the export of certain items to Hong Kong and revoking Hong Kong’s special status, some observers have urged Washington to take stronger measures under Article 23 After passing.
“Congress and the administration can do a lot, including imposing additional sanctions on those responsible for enforcing the two national security laws and advancing other existing legislation related to Hong Kong,” said Samuel Bickett, a human rights activist in Washington. ) said, speaking to VOA by phone.
Leaders of the U.S. Congressional-Executive Branch Committee on China and the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party sent a letter to U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Thursday urging him to consider new sanctions against officials who undermine freedoms and the rule of law in Hong Kong.
They also vowed to push for the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office Accreditation Act and the Transnational Repressive Policies Act in Congress.If passed, the two bills would require Hong Kong to close its trade offices in the United States and allow the U.S. government to impose sanctions on Chinese or Hong Kong officials responsible for launching a cross-border crackdown on U.S. dissidents.
The impact of laws on immigration and business
Bickett and Rogers believe that in addition to taking stronger measures against Hong Kong and the Chinese government, democracies should also introduce new immigration measures to accommodate the increasing number of Hong Kong citizens leaving the city. According to Bloomberg statistics, about 500,000 people have left Hong Kong since 2021.
While the UK launched an immigration scheme for Hong Kongers holding British overseas passports and recently expanded it to more young people, Rogers hopes other countries, including the US and European countries, will develop similar schemes for Hong Kongers.
“I would like to see the EU and the US provide some options so that Hong Kong people who are not eligible for the UK immigration scheme can have other options,” he said.
Because the Title 23 legislation uses vague language to define espionage and theft of state secrets, some analysts say foreign companies could face serious challenges when conducting due diligence or seeking information.
“This could be a significant blow to banks and financial institutions, and it will further discourage investors from coming to Hong Kong because access to information is now further restricted,” said Jimmy Lai, an expert on Hong Kong’s legal system at the Georgetown Asia Legal Center, who told Us by phone. sound.
Some analysts say growing uncertainty in the business environment will lead more foreign companies to consider leaving Hong Kong.
Andrew Collier, managing director of Oriental Capital Research, told VOA in a written response: “Unless the Hong Kong government quickly establishes guardrails that limit the operational boundaries of the new law, Article 23 will accelerate the exodus of international businesses.”
Follow us on Google news ,Twitter , and Join Whatsapp Group of thelocalreport.in
