In the year since Hong Kong passed its “Article 23” legislation, national security police have hauled in the friends of a pro-democracy activist in Taiwan over comments he made on social media, and are increasingly monitoring people’s social media interactions.
Fu Tong, who now lives in democratic Taiwan, said police back home seem to be targeting online speech since the passing of a second national security law that includes a broader “sedition” offense than earlier legislation.
“It’s pretty serious now,” Fu told RFA in an interview on Monday. “Before, they would just read my posts. But since Article 23, they have even been monitoring my interactions with my friends.”
A friend of his was hauled in for questioning by national security police after Fu left a comment on their Facebook account, he said.
“Now, I daren’t leave comments on my friends' Facebook [posts],” he said.
The Safeguarding National Security bill, commonly known as Article 23, was passed on March 23, 2024.
It came amid a crackdown on dissent that has used both the 2020 National Security Law and colonial-era sedition laws to prosecute and jail people for protest and political opposition in unprecedented numbers.
Chilling effect
The government said the legislation was needed to plug “loopholes” left by the 2020 National Security Law and claims it is needed to deal with clandestine activity by “foreign forces" in the city, which the ruling Communist Party blames for the 2019 mass protest movement that was sparked by plans to allow extradition to mainland China.
The law proposes sentences of up to life imprisonment for “treason,” “insurrection,” “sabotage” and “mutiny,” 20 years for espionage and 10 years for crimes linked to “state secrets” and “sedition.”
It also allows the authorities to revoke the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region passports of anyone who flees overseas, and to target overseas activists with financial sanctions.
The concept of “collusion with foreign forces ” runs throughout the draft bill, and sentences are harsher where “foreign forces” are deemed to be involved.
Fu said Article 23 has had a chilling effect on Hong Kong-related activism, even overseas, with fewer exiled Hong Kongers turning out for protests and other events in Taiwan.
He said activists still plan to go ahead with a protest marking the first anniversary of the Article 23 legislation in Taipei on Sunday, however.
Eric Lai, a research fellow at the Center for Asian Law, Georgetown University, said there are other examples of the law being used to censor social media.
In May 2024, Hong Kong police arrested jailed human rights lawyer Chow Hang-tung and five other people — the first arrests to be made under the recently passed Article 23 security law — for making social media posts with “seditious intent” ahead of the anniversary of the June 4, 1989, Tiananmen Square massacre.
Being watched
He said the government is using the legislation to bolster the feeling that ordinary people are being watched.
“Over the past year, the most common charge used to prosecute people under Article 23 has been sedition,” Lai said. “Sedition is kind of a catch-all offense, and the government is using it to target more ordinary Hong Kongers.”
“The point is to warn Hong Kongers that they’re not immune just because they’re not a political figure ... and that ordinary people are also being monitored when they go online,” he said.
The government hasn’t made public details of the number of prosecutions under the law to date, but Lai said that the cases that make the news may only be the tip of the iceberg.
He said the recent confiscation of exiled pro-democracy lawmaker Ted Hui’s assets only came to light because Hui himself spoke out about it.
He said the law grants sweeping powers of surveillance to the authorities, increasing the size of the police dragnet to include everyday comments and activities.
“The biggest difference between Article 23 and the 2020 National Security Law is that Article 23 provides more powers for the Hong Kong government to chip away at the system,” Lai said.
“The government can decide not to parole people if it judges them to be a threat to national security, and it can prevent defendants from seeing a lawyer, and hold them in police stations for longer than before,” he said.
He said it was significant that the Court of Appeal allowed an injunction against the banned 2019 protest anthem “Glory to Hong Kong” after the Article 23 legislation was passed.
Translated by Luisetta Mudie. Edited by Malcolm Foster.