radiofree.asia

Category: Law

  • Under new security law, Hong Kongers fear ‘saying the wrong thing’

    As the Hong Kong government tries to reassure the city’s 7 million residents that they have little to fear from the latest national security law, residents say they now live in greater fear of a misstep that could land them in jail.

    The Safeguarding National Security Law, known as “Article 23,” took effect on March 23, and has been billed by the government as a way to protect the city from interference and infiltration by “hostile foreign forces” that Beijing blames for waves of mass popular protests in recent years.

    But its critics — and some of the city’s residents — say they will now have to be far more careful about what they say in casual conversation or online.

    “I used to get together regularly with a dozen or so friends to eat and chat for fun,” a Hong Konger who gave only the surname Chow for fear of reprisals told RFA on Monday.

    “I won’t be inviting people to my home for dinner any more, or going to theirs, because I don’t know if I can trust everyone I meet up with not to report me,” she said. “I don’t know if I could get into trouble for saying the wrong thing.”

    Chow said she has already thrown out all of her old copies of the pro-democracy Apple Daily, which was forced to shut down amid an investigation under the first national security law in 2021.

    ‘Soft confrontation’

    Chow is also planning to spend some tourist dollars in the neighboring Chinese city of Shenzhen to demonstrate her patriotism and loyalty.

    “It’s to avoid being labeled by others, who might say I’m engaging in soft confrontation with the government,” Chow said.

    ENG_CHN_HKClimateOfFear_03252024.2.jpg
    People visit the International Immigration & Property expo in Hong Kong, March 23, 2024. (Louise Delmotte./AP)

    “Soft confrontation” is a term that has been used by Hong Kong officials including Chief Executive John Lee to justify the second round of national security legislation.

    In January, Lee warned that “soft confrontation” could disguise itself as “so-called human rights, freedom, democracy and people’s livelihood,” and said the city needed the law to protect itself against “hostile forces” waiting to pounce.

    Pro-democracy media mogul Jimmy Lai is currently on trial for “collusion with foreign forces” under the 2020 National Security Law — the case against him relies heavily on opinion articles published in his flagship Apple Daily newspaper.

    Self-censorship

    A former 2019 protester who gave only the surname Tin for fear of reprisals said she had been careful not to criticize Article 23 in public because she feels that the risk of arrest just got a lot higher with the new law.

    “There are so many ways that they can get you under Article 23 that you have to censor yourself,” Tin said, citing a recent exchange at her place of work, in which a colleague was shushed for criticizing John Lee’s appearance.

    “Someone said something critical about John Lee’s appearance, and another person immediately warned them not to, saying we need to be careful not to break the law once Article 23 is passed,” she said. “Everyone immediately fell silent.”

    Tin said that while everyone knows that self-censorship isn’t ideal, they will do it anyway.

    “The only silver lining is that we know self-censorship is wrong — we don’t yet completely accept it as they do in mainland China,” she said.

    ‘Rebuttal team’

    The government launched a “rebuttal team” in January to hit back at international criticism of the new law, and has been busy sending officials out to reassure people in media interviews since.

    On Monday, Justice Secretary Paul Lam set out to reassure people that journalists wouldn’t be targeted simply for reporting criticism of the Hong Kong authorities.

    “Anyone carrying out sincere journalistic work has absolutely no need to worry,” Lam told a local radio show, without explaining how such “sincerity” would be measured by the authorities.

    “Sometimes it’s important to report comments that are unfriendly to Hong Kong … but the purpose should be to let us know so we can deal with it,” Lam said.

    ENG_CHN_HKClimateOfFear_03252024.3.jpg
    Hong Kong Chief John Lee signs the Article 23 bill, March 22, 2024. (Information Services Department of the Government of the HKSAR via Xinhua)

    A Hong Kong journalist who gave only the nickname Chin for fear of reprisals said he feels under far more pressure than he did before the Article 23 legislation took effect.

    “It feels like the calm before the storm,” Chin said. “I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t under any pressure.”

    “As I continue to work in the media, I will … be constantly assessing the risks and making professional judgments, to make sure I’m doing what I’m supposed to do,” he said.

    Quieting criticism

    Meanwhile, Lam has also warned that anyone who “relentlessly” reposts critical comments online could be targeted.

    “[W]hen someone publishes criticism relentlessly, even if they have been told why their criticism is unreasonable or why it wouldn’t be accepted … then I would begin to have a doubt: Are they actually making criticism?” Lam said in comments reported by the Hong Kong Free Press.

    A Hong Kong resident surnamed Hui said he would be making some changes too, but said he would keep viewing overseas media content on YouTube that was critical of the government.

    Secretary for Security Chris Tang has also been defending the new security law in public, claiming in a statement on Friday that it won’t affect “normal business operations” in the city.

    “Law-abiding persons (including US businessmen and enterprises in Hong Kong and US travelers visiting Hong Kong) will not engage in acts and activities endangering our national security and will not unwittingly violate the law,” Tang said in a statement on March 23.

    But an accountant in a logistics company who gave the pseudonym Avis for fear of reprisals said his employer has warned colleagues to be careful what they do and say, now that the law has taken effect.

    But he said that’s not always straightforward.

    “It’s not always clear when doing business whether a client has done something to violate national security laws,” Avis said. 

    He said it will likely mean a lot more due diligence to ensure the company isn’t put at risk by its business contacts.

    “You can lose a lot of business opportunities if you have to take a lot of care to know the other party very well before acting,” he said.

    A civil servant who gave only the nickname Ming said it’s too soon to say how much their work will be affected, however.

    “I won’t be talking to my colleagues about Article 23,” he said. “We will just get on with our work, and there won’t be any discussion of it.”

    “It’s not for us to comment, right?” 

    Translated by Luisetta Mudie. Edited by Malcolm Foster.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Ray Chung for RFA Cantonese, Chen Zifei for RFA Mandarin.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Hong Kong’s new security law sparks global protests, warnings

    Hong Kongers took to the streets of cities around the world over the weekend to protest a second national security law known as “Article 23” that critics say violates rights to freedom of expression and association, as governments updated travel advisories to warn citizens of an increased risk of detention.

    In London, around 400 protesters holding banners that read “Free Hong Kong, Revolution Now!” — a slogan of the 2019 pro-democracy movement that has been banned in the city — rallied outside the British government’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to protest the Safeguarding National Security Law, which took effect on Saturday.

    They chanted, “Say no to dictatorship!” and “Hong Kong independence is the only solution!” as they marched through Chinatown en route to the rally, where some trampled the official flag of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in protest.

    Rallies also took place in Sydney, Vancouver, Taipei and elsewhere.

    The law is the second national security law to be passed since 2020, and will plug “loopholes” left by the 2020 National Security Law imposed on Hong Kong by Beijing in the wake of 2019 protests, according to the government.

    But critics say Article 23 will likely extend the existing use of “national security” charges to prosecute peaceful dissent and political opposition, striking a further blow at human rights protections in the city.

    The British government on March 22 updated its travel advice for Hong Kong to warn citizens that they could be detained or removed to mainland China for some offenses or prosecuted for “supporting individuals who are considered to be breaking the national security laws,” which includes statements critical of the authorities, including online.

    Australia updated its advice on the same day to warn its citizens of an increased risk of detention if they travel to Hong Kong.

    “Hong Kong has strict laws on national security that can be interpreted broadly,” the advice now reads. “You could break the laws without intending to and be detained without charge and denied access to a lawyer. We continue to advise … a high degree of caution.”

    A Hong Kong government spokesman on Friday condemned the advice as “scaremongering,” saying such warnings were “tactics aimed at destabilizing Hong Kong.”

    Avoiding political topics

    Protests against the new law also took place in several Canadian cities including Vancouver, where around 300 protesters formed a human chain and sang the protest anthem “Glory to Hong Kong,” which has been banned from public performance or dissemination in Hong Kong.

    Others carried placards calling for independence for the city, which has seen a sharp deterioration in its promised rights and freedoms since the 1997 handover to Chinese rule.

    ENG_CHN_HKNatSecREAX_03252024.3.JPEG
    A protester holds up a sign protesting the “Article 23” national security legislation in London, March 23, 2024. RFA/Cheryl Tung.

    Some wore masks, reflecting recent reprisals by authorities in Hong Kong against overseas activists and their families back home.

    Two protesters who gave only the nicknames Amy and Candy told RFA that they came to Canada through the lifeboat visa scheme, but they are careful to avoid mentioning politics when speaking with their families back home.

    “You have to think carefully before you say anything, because if someone hears you, they could report you and get you arrested,” Candy said.

    Amy added: “They want to find an excuse to target anyone they don’t like.”

    A spokeswoman for protest organizers Vancouver Brothers who gave only the nickname Christine for fear of reprisals said the definitions of the “crimes” in Article 23 are very broad, and anyone could be targeted regardless of nationality.

    She cited the arrests of Canadians Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor in China on “espionage” charges as retaliation for the Vancouver arrest of Huawei Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou in 2018. 

    “We want to call on the international community to please help save Hong Kong, and to impose sanctions on Chinese Communist Party and Hong Kong officials because they have taken away freedom and democracy in Hong Kong,” Christine told RFA.

    ‘Last nail’

    In Sydney, dozens of protesters sang “Glory to Hong Kong” and watched performance artist Pamela Leung stage a work titled “The Last Nail,” depicting the Article 23 legislation as the “last nail” in the coffin of Hong Kong’s rights and freedoms. 

    Protesters also carried placards pointing to more than 1,700 political prisoners since the first round of national security legislation was imposed on the city, and draped chains around the protest site.

    “The chains are just a reference to political prisoners in Hong Kong — they actually reach much further than that,” a protester who gave only the name Ivan for fear of reprisals told RFA at the scene. “If governments don’t move to prevent it, they will extend and trap the whole world.”

    ENG_CHN_HKNatSecREAX_03252024.4.JPG
    Protesters including one dressed up as Winnie-the-Pooh, prepared to represent Xi Jinping, perform during a protest against Hong Kong’s new national security law recently approved by Hong Kong lawmakers, in Taipei, Taiwan, Saturday, March 23, 2024. (AP Photo/Chiang Ying-ying)

    In democratic Taiwan, former political prisoner Lee Ming-cheh told a rally organized by the Hong Kong Outlanders campaign group that if Taiwan didn’t pay close attention to China’s handling of Hong Kong, then its 23 million people could be next.

    “China has never followed the law, doesn’t abide by its own commitments, and has ignored international law, so China will consider Taiwan, which it has never ruled, its territory,” Lee said.

    “Taiwanese should stand in solidarity with Hong Kong. If there is no way to curb China’s destruction of the rule of law in Hong Kong … the next victim will definitely be Taiwan,” said Lee, who served a five-year sentence for “subversion” in a Chinese jail.

    Harder for journalists

    Former CNN China correspondent Mike Chinoy said the National Security Law and the Article 23 legislation will make it harder for foreign journalists to work in the city.

    “The National Security Law and Article 23 are going to make people reluctant to talk to journalists,” Chinoy said, adding that the 2019 protest movement had likely “terrified” Chinese President Xi Jinping.

    “There was always a lot of suspicion about Hong Kong because it was so Westernized and it was so separate,” Chinoy said in a recent interview with RFA.

    “My sense is that they saw in Hong Kong a rebellious peripheral area heavily influenced by foreigners that was challenging the central government, and I think that must have absolutely terrified them.”

    In a March 19 statement, former colonial governor Chris Patten said the law was “another large nail in the coffin of human rights and the rule of law in Hong Kong.”

    “Governments and parliaments around the world will take note and so will international investors,” he said.

    Chris Smith, chairman of the US Congressional-Executive Commission on China warned on March 22 that the new law could target employees of U.S. companies in Hong Kong and called on the business community to carefully assess the risks posed by the legislation.

    ENG_CHN_HKNatSecREAX_03252024.2.JPEG
    Hong Kong Watch CEO Benedict Rogers addresses a protest rally against the “Article 23” national security legislation in London, March 23, 2024. RFA/Cheryl Tung.

    Meanwhile, 88 parliamentarians from the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, EU and other countries said the law was a “flagrant breach” of China’s obligations under the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration, a U.N.-registered treaty governing the handover of Hong Kong to China.

    Benedict Rogers, CEO of the London-based rights group Hong Kong Watch, said the Article 23 legislation was a “death knell” for Hong Kong’s remaining freedoms.

    “We urge the international community to address the new threats posed by Article 23 legislation by imposing targeted sanctions, broadening lifeboat schemes for Hong Kongers, ensuring that the law is not applicable overseas and used for transnational repression,” Rogers said, calling for a review of Hong Kong’s special status, including the city’s separate Trade and Economic Offices in foreign countries.

    Translated by Luisetta Mudie. Edited by Malcolm Foster.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by .

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Protests against ‘Article 23’ security law as it takes effect in Hong Kong | Radio Free Asia (RFA)


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Radio Free Asia.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • CPJ among 145 groups condemning ‘chilling effect’ of Hong Kong security law

    New York, March 22, 2024—As a new national security law goes into effect in Hong Kong on Saturday, CPJ was among 145 groups across the globe that denounced the legislation, which could deepen a crackdown on human rights and further suppress media freedom in the city.

    Enacted under Article 23 of Hong Kong’s mini-constitution, the law punishes offenses ranging from theft of state secrets to sedition. The statement said this could make journalism “even riskier” and intensify censorship in the Asian financial hub.

    Once a beacon of press freedom in Asia, Hong Kong has seen a dramatic decline with journalists arrested, jailed, and threatened since Beijing implemented a national security law in the city in 2020. Among those jailed includes Jimmy Lai, founder of the now-shuttered pro-democracy newspaper Apple Daily.

    The new security law, passed by Hong Kong’s legislature on Tuesday, expands on the 2020 Beijing-imposed legislation.

    Read the joint statement here:

    Joint Statement to Oppose Article 23Download


    This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Te Kuaka calls for urgent law change on spy agency, warns over Pacific

    Asia Pacific Report

    Te Kuaka, an independent foreign policy advocacy group with a strong focus on the Pacific, has called for urgent changes to the law governing New Zealand’s security agency.

    “Pacific countries will be asking legitimate questions about whether . . . spying in the Pacific was happening out of NZ,” it said today.

    This follows revelations that a secret foreign spy operation run out of NZ’s Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) for seven years without the knowledge or approval of the government or Parliament.

    RNZ News reports today that the former minister responsible for the GCSB, Andrew Little, has admitted that it may never be known whether the foreign spy operation was supporting military action against another country.

    New Zealand’s intelligence watchdog the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security revealed its existence on Thursday, noting that the system operated from 2013-2020 and had the potential to be used to support military action against targets.

    The operation was used to intercept military communications and identify targets in the GCSB’s area of operation, which centres on the Pacific.

    In 2012, the GCSB signed up to the agreement without telling the then director-general and let the system operate without safeguards including adequate training, record-keeping or auditing.

    When Little found out about it he supported it being referred to the Inspector-General for investigation.

    How the New Zealand Herald, NZ's largest newspaper, reported the news of the secret spy agency
    How the New Zealand Herald, NZ’s largest newspaper, reported the news of the secret spy agency today . . . “buried” on page A7. Image: NZH screenshot APR

    Refused to name country
    But he refused to say if he believed the covert operation was run by the United States although it was likely to be one of New Zealand’s Five Eyes partners, reports RNZ.

    Te Kuaka said in a statement today the inquiry should prompt immediate law reform and widespread concern.

    “This should be of major concern to all New Zealanders because we are not in control here”, said Te Kuaka member and constitutional lawyer Fuimaono Dylan Asafo.

    “The inquiry reveals that our policies and laws are not fit for purpose, and that they do not cover the operation of foreign agencies within New Zealand.”

    It appeared from the inquiry that even GCSB itself had lost track of the system and did not know its full purpose, Te Kuaka said.

    It was “rediscovered” following concerns about another partner system hosted by GCSB.

    While there have been suggestions the system was established under previously lax legislation, its operation continued through several agency and legislative reviews.

    Ultimately, the inquiry found “that the Bureau could not be sure [its operation] was always in accordance with government intelligence requirements, New Zealand law and the provisions of the [Memorandum of Understanding establishing it]”.

    ‘Unknowingly complicit’
    “We do not know what military activities were undertaken using New Zealand’s equipment and base, and this could make us unknowingly complicit in serious breaches of international law”, Fuimaono said.

    “The law needs changing to explicitly prohibit what has occurred here.”

    The foreign policy group has also raised the alarm that New Zealand’s involvement in the AUKUS security pact could compound problems raised by this inquiry.

    AUKUS is a trilateral security pact between Australia, the UK and the US that aims to contain China.

    Pillar Two’s objective is to win the next generation arms race being shaped by new autonomous weapons platforms, electronic warfare systems, and hypersonic missiles.

    It also involves intelligence sharing with AI-driven targeting systems and nuclear-capable assets.

    ‘Pacific questions’
    “Pacific countries will be asking legitimate questions about whether this revelation indicates that spying in the Pacific was happening out of NZ, without any knowledge of ministers”, said Te Kuaka co-director Marco de Jong.

    “New Zealand’s involvement in AUKUS Pillar II could further threaten the trust that we have built with Pacific countries, and others may ask whether involvement in that pact — with closer ties to the US — will increase the risk that our intelligence agencies will become entangled in other countries’ operations, and other people’s wars, without proper oversight.”

    Te Kuaka has previously spoken out about concerns over AUKUS Pillar II.

    “We understand that there is some sensitivity in this matter, but the security and intelligence agencies should front up to ministers here in a public setting to explain how this was allowed to happen,” De Jong said.

    He added that the agencies needed to assure the public that serious military or other operations were not conducted from NZ soil without democratic oversight.”


    This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Overseas activists vow to keep fighting despite new Hong Kong security law

    Overseas activists have vowed to keep up their campaign for Hong Kong’s promised rights and freedoms amid international condemnation of the city’s second national security law, which critics say will likely widen an ongoing crackdown on dissent when it takes effect on Saturday.

    The Taiwan-based advocacy group Hong Kong Outlanders said the Safeguarding National Security Law, passed unanimously in a Legislative Council with no opposition members on Tuesday, had been rushed through in just 11 days.

    “We will continue to speak out without fear of this evil law,” the group said, announcing a protest on the streets against the legislation on Saturday, to “defend the rights of Hong Kongers.”

    U.S. Senator Ben Cardin, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the law will have “a chilling effect on the remaining vestiges of Hong Kong’s autonomy and freedoms.”

    He said he was “alarmed” about the impact of the law on American citizens, businesses and independent media in the city.

    “I urge the Beijing and the Hong Kong governments to rescind Article 23, as well as the 2020 National Security Law, and restore to the people of Hong Kong their basic rights and freedoms,” Cardin said, adding that Congress will continue to reevaluate the treatment of Hong Kong as a separate entity from the rest of China under U.S. law.

    Making life harder

    British Foreign Secretary David Cameron warned that the law will make it harder to live, work and do business in Hong Kong.

    “It fails to provide certainty for international organizations, including diplomatic missions, who are operating there,” Cameron said in a statement on the government website.

    ENG_CHN_HKNatSecREAX_03202024.2.jpeg
    A poster advertises a street activity in Taipei on the Facebook page of the Taiwan-based exile group Hong Kong Outlanders. (hkoutlanders.tw via Facebook)

    “It will entrench the culture of self-censorship which now dominates Hong Kong’s social and political landscape, and enable the continuing erosion of freedoms of speech, of assembly, and of the media,” he said. 

    In Beijing, foreign ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said such comments were “slander.”

    “China expresses strong dissatisfaction and firm opposition to certain countries and institutions that denigrate and smear Hong Kong’s Safeguarding National Security Ordinance,” Lin told a regular news briefing in Beijing.

    “The Chinese government is unswervingly determined to safeguard national sovereignty, security, and development interests, and … to oppose any external interference in Hong Kong affairs,” he said.

    ‘Puppet government’

    U.S.-based Hong Kong rights campaigner Frances Hui said she had “struggled to get out of bed” due to depression after the government bypassed democratic institutions that took decades to build.

    “I know #JoshuaWong, Wong Ji-yuet, and others will probably spend more days in jail under this law,” Hui said via her X account, in a reference to democracy activists already imprisoned for taking part in protests in the city.

    “The only remaining bits of freedom in the city will soon be crumbled. Hong Kong will become just another Chinese city with a puppet govt that obeys China,” she wrote.

    But she added: “I know our determination for freedom & democracy will never change. One day, we will meet again.”

    Taiwan’s ruling Democratic Progressive Party condemned the passing of the law as the “darkest day” for Hong Kong. 

    ENG_CHN_HKNatSecREAX_03202024.3.jpg
    Police officers stand guard outside the Legislative Council in Hong Kong, March 19, 2024. (Louise Delmotte/AP)

    “Hong Kong is now completely shrouded in the shadow of the Chinese Communist Party’s totalitarian rule,” the party said in a statement on Wednesday, adding that the Legislative Council was now just a “rubber stamp” for Beijing.

    It said the new law’s more expansive interpretations of national security crimes would “completely destroy what Hong Kong has left in the way of human rights or a legal system.”

    The party vowed to support the international effort to help Hong Kong, safeguard democracy and counter totalitarianism.

    Investors will leave

    In Japan, Foreign Ministry Press Secretary Kobayashi Maki said the government has “grave concern” about the law, and called on the authorities to ensure that the rights of Japanese nationals and companies in Hong Kong were respected, citing close economic ties with the city.

    U.S. State Department spokesperson Vedant Patel said the law has the potential “to accelerate the closing of Hong Kong’s once open society.”

    “We’re alarmed by the sweeping and what we interpret as vaguely defined provisions laid out in their Article 23 legislation,” he told a regular news briefing in Washington on Tuesday.

    “We think that this was fast-tracked through the non democratically elected Legislative Council after a truncated public comment period,” he said, adding that U.S. officials are in the process of analyzing potential risks to American interests under the law.

    Wu Jui-ren, an associate researcher at Taiwan’s Academia Sinica, predicted that the law will spell the end of Hong Kong’s status as a global financial center.

    Foreign investors will leave one after another, he predicted. 

    Patrick Poon, human rights campaigner and visiting researcher at the University of Tokyo, said the law gives officials too much power, especially when it comes to defining what is meant by “collusion with foreign forces” or “state secrets,” or what constitutes subversion.

    He said anyone working for foreign organizations in the city could be at risk under the law, even if they post something online that the government doesn’t like.

    “It’s all entirely up to those who enforce the law to decide, in line with the practice of totalitarian governments,” Poon said. “Hong Kong has gone a step further towards being just like mainland China.”

    Translated by Luisetta Mudie. Edited by Malcolm Foster.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by .

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Chinese state TV reports passage of Hong Kong security law before vote

    When Hong Kong’s Legislative Council passed a strict national security law under Article 23 of its mini-constitution, the long-expected move hit global headlines within minutes.

    Yet China’s state broadcaster CCTV was faster than any of them — it beat out its competitors by posting the results of the vote to its news client on social media platforms nearly 20 minutes before Council members had even started voting.

    The Council’s 89 lawmakers, all of whom won their seats under new electoral rules that allow only “patriots” loyal to Beijing to stand, voted unanimously to pass the Safeguarding National Security Law, that makes treason, insurrection and sabotage punishable by up to life in prison.

    In scenes reminiscent of China’s rubber-stamp parliament, the National People’s Congress, lawmaker after lawmaker stood up to extol the benefits of the law, which will likely widen an ongoing crackdown on peaceful dissent, according to its critics.

    CCTV posts news about Hong Kong's Legislative Council passing the Safeguarding National Security Law on the third reading at 6:33 p.m. (18:33:39 highlighted by red box) on March 19, 2024, though voting didn’t begin until 6:48 p.m. (Image from CCTV)
    CCTV posts news about Hong Kong’s Legislative Council passing the Safeguarding National Security Law on the third reading at 6:33 p.m. (18:33:39 highlighted by red box) on March 19, 2024, though voting didn’t begin until 6:48 p.m. (Image from CCTV)

    Many had dressed for the occasion.

    “Many government officials and members wore purple clothing and accessories, the theme color for Article 23, to show their support at the LegCo [Legislative Council] on Tuesday,” the nationalist Global Times reported. 

    Schoolchildren turned up to see what Chief Executive John Lee described as a “historic” vote in their city’s legislature, the paper said.

    Lawmakers name-checked all the key ruling Chinese Communist Party talking points around the law, saying it was a necessary move to “ensure the safety of life and property” in the wake of the 2019 protest movement.

    That movement called for fully democratic elections, the results of which can be surprising, and are never known in advance.

    Digs and accusations

    Councilor Dominic Lee added a dig at “hypocritical” former colonial governor Lord Patten of Barnes, while repeating the government’s line that the law is no different from national security laws in democratic nations, despite the prosecution of dozens of activists and politicians for “subversion,” for organizing a democratic primary in the summer of 2020.

    Lawmaker Elizabeth Quat accused the United States of “demonizing the law.”

    There was so much praise and defense of the law that deliberations didn’t conclude until 6:48 p.m. local time.

    But for those who couldn’t wait for the results of the historic vote, CCTV was there at 6:33 p.m., informing its readers: “Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Legislative Council passes ‘Safeguarding National Security Law’ on third reading.”

    It wasn’t until after 6:48 p.m. that voting began in the Legislative Council chamber, nearly 20 minutes later.

    Exiled former pro-democracy lawmaker Ted Hui said the Council, once the scene of vigorous political debate, regular protests, thrown objects and uncertain outcomes, is clearly now just another rubber-stamp body with voting results that are a foregone conclusion.

    “The Legislative Council is just a rubber stamp … and is just there to serve Beijing’s political goals,” Hui said. 

    “There is no longer any difference between the National People’s Congress and LegCo.”

    Translated by Luisetta Mudie. Edited by Roseanne Gerin.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Chen Zifei for RFA Mandarin.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • ‘Man-made famine’ charge against Israel is backed by mounting body of evidence

    Prospect of Israel facing war crimes charges has moved closer after UN condemnation of Gaza aid restrictions

    The accusation by the UN and other humanitarians that Israel may be committing a war crime by deliberately starving Gaza’s population is likely to significantly increase the prospect of legal culpability for the country, including at the international court of justice.

    Amid reports that the Israel Defense Forces are hiring dozens of lawyers to defend against anticipated cases and legal challenges, the charge that Israel has triggered a “man-made famine” by deliberately obstructing the entry of aid into Gaza is backed by an increasing body of evidence.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Hong Kong passes strict new national security law

    Hong Kong’s Legislative Council on Tuesday passed a strict national security law known as Article 23 that makes treason, insurrection and sabotage punishable by up to life in prison, and that will likely widen an ongoing crackdown on peaceful dissent.

    All 89 legislators voted in favor of the Safeguarding National Security bill, which will come into force on Friday, after lining up to sing the praises of the legislation at a special session attended by Chief Executive John Lee.

    Critics say the ruling Communist Party has a broad and vaguely defined interpretation of many of the crimes in the bill, and that “national security” charges are already being used to prosecute people for peaceful dissent and political opposition in the city.

    The Council has lacked any political opposition since changes to the electoral rules, and many former pro-democracy politicians have fled a crackdown on public dissent under the 2020 National Security Law, while others are on trial for “subversion.”

    The law targets five types of offenses. It can punish people for “treason,” “insurrection,” and “sabotage” with life in prison, while those found guilty of “espionage” can face up to 20 years. Those found to have committed crimes linked to “state secrets” and “sedition” face up to 10 years in prison.

    The new law also gives new powers to the police and courts to extend pre-charge detention for those held on suspicion of endangering national security to up to 16 days and to restrict detainees’ meetings with their lawyers. 

    Under the law, the authorities will also have the power to revoke the passports of anyone who flees overseas and is considered an “absconder.”

    The legislation is mandated by Article 23 of Hong Kong’s Basic Law, which has provided a constitutional framework for the city since the 1997 handover to Chinese rule. 

    It was recently rebooted after being shelved following mass popular protests against it in 2003.

    Edited by Malcolm Foster and Luisetta Mudie.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Edward Lee for RFA Cantonese.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • UK relaxes rules for Hong Kong migrants ahead of new security law

    As Hong Kong authorities prepare to pass a second national security law, the British government has relaxed some of the immigration rules for people from the city seeking to emigrate to the United Kingdom amid a crackdown on dissent.

    The Safeguarding National Security bill, currently before the Legislative Council, includes sentences of up to life imprisonment for treason, insurrection, sabotage and mutiny, and 20 years for espionage. 

    It can punish people 10 years for crimes linked to “state secrets” and “sedition,” and allow the passports of anyone who flees overseas to be revoked.

    The legislation is mandatory under Article 23 of its Basic Law, which has provided a constitutional framework for the city since the 1997 handover to Chinese rule. 

    It was recently rebooted after being shelved following mass popular protests against it in 2003, and is expected to pass this week.

    Critics say the ruling Communist Party has a broad and vaguely defined interpretation of many of the crimes in the bill, and that “national security” charges are already being used to prosecute people for peaceful dissent and political opposition in the city.

    Relaxed rules

    Now, the U.K. Home Office has relaxed the rules for holders of its British National Overseas, or BNO, passport who wish to apply for a visa. 

    The visa offers a pathway to resettlement and eventual citizenship, making it easier for them to obtain public assistance if they run out of money, smoothing out bureaucratic bottlenecks and allowing them to bring relatives and dependent adults with them with independent visa status.

    In February, the United Kingdom loosened requirements for people wanting to emigrate from Hong Kong with their partner under the BNO route to citizenship. To date, at least 191,000 people have applied to the visa program, according to government figures released in November.

    ENG_CHN_HKNatSec_03182024.2.jpg
    A girl waves farewell to friends as she departs for a permanent move to the U.K. at the Hong Kong airport, June 30, 2021. (Vincent Yu/AP)

    The moves, while not huge in scope, will likely smooth the path of many families to resettlement in the United Kingdom, an immigration consultant told RFA Cantonese.

    An immigration consultant with the British advocacy group Hong Kong Aid who gave only his surname Chow for fear of reprisals said he has seen an uptick in inquiries about the BNO visa since the government announced it would fast-track the new national security law through the legislature.

    “My sense is we have been getting a lot more inquiries from Hong Kong about applying for BNO visas and political asylum as the Article 23 [law] has been in process,” Chow said. 

    “We have been getting a call every couple of days since February,” he said. Public consultation on the law started on Jan. 30.

    Chow said he didn’t believe that the rule changes alone were enough to prompt a surge in applications.

    A Hong Kong resident who moved to the United Kingdom a few months ago and who gave only the surname Cheung welcomed the rule changes. Now she plans to apply to have her elderly, dependent mother join her.

    “It’s definitely very beneficial, because I had been worried about this for a long time,” she said. “She’s very old, and this is about our family’s long-term future and career development. We all think the U.K. is a better place.”

    Moves in Canada

    Meanwhile, lawmakers in Canada are calling on the government to make sure that they continue to offer priority processing of applications from Hong Kongers wanting to emigrate to the country, and to take steps to ease bureaucratic bottlenecks for more than 100 applicants.

    Parliamentarians Melissa Lantsman and Tom Kmiec said they are concerned about the effects of delays “as the human rights situation in Hong Kong continues to deteriorate and Hong Kongers look for a safe way to exit the city by immigrating to Canada.”

    “We would like to clarify whether priority processing is still in place as the situation in Hong Kong continues to deteriorate,” they said in a letter to the immigration minister.

    Aileen Calverley, co-founder and trustee of the London-based rights group Hong Kong Watch, said many Hong Kongers are being faced with delays in processing their applications to emigrate to Canada.

    “It is important that the government uphold its commitment and ensure their applications are processed in a timely manner,” Calverley said in a statement.

    Translated with additional reporting by Luisetta Mudie. Edited by Malcolm Foster.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Cheryl Tung for RFA Cantonese.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Russians form long queues at polling stations in ‘noon against Putin’ protest

    Voters in some cities answer Yulia Navalnaya’s call to turn up at midday to signal dissent against president

    Long queues formed at several polling stations in Moscow and other Russian cities as people took up a call from Alexei Navalny’s widow to head to the polls at noon on Sunday in a symbolic show of dissent against Vladimir Putin’s all but certain re-election as president.

    In the run-up to the three-day presidential elections, Yulia Navalnaya urged her supporters to protest against Putin by appearing en masse at midday on Sunday in a legal show of strength against the longtime Russian leader.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Kyrgyzstan parliament approves ‘foreign agents’ law

    Stockholm, March 15, 2024—Kyrgyz President Sadyr Japarov should reject Russian-inspired legislation that would designate externally funded media rights groups and nonprofits that run news outlets as “foreign representatives,” the Committee to Protect Journalists said Friday.

    On Thursday, Kyrgyzstan’s parliament approved in a third and final reading, without debate, a bill requiring nonprofits that receive foreign funding and engage in what it defines as political activities to register as “foreign representatives,” according to news reports.

    Japarov, who recently defended the law in a letter to U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, has a month to return the bill or sign it into law.

    The bill, an amended version of a draft law previously criticized by CPJ, does not directly target news outlets but would apply to media rights organizations and nonprofits that run several of Kyrgyzstan’s prominent independent news websites, according to CPJ’s review.

    A new provision requires organizations designated as “foreign representatives” to label their publications as being produced by a foreign representative. Other clauses grant authorities sweeping powers of oversight over the activities of “foreign representatives” and allow them to suspend or shutter nonprofits for alleged violations of the law.

    “The ‘foreign agents’ bill passed by Kyrgyzstan’s parliament copies many of the worst aspects of Russia’s foreign agent legislation. It is clearly focused on stigmatizing nonprofits working in news media and threatens to hamstring the work of press freedom organizations,” said Gulnoza Said, CPJ’s Europe and Central Asia program coordinator, in New York. “Kyrgyz President Sadyr Japarov must show that his stated commitment to free speech is more than empty words by vetoing the bill and withdrawing his support for any form of foreign agent law.”

    Submitted to parliament in May, the bill has elicited extensive international criticism, including from the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, U.N. special rapporteurs, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and Blinken.

    The latest version of the bill, amended by parliament in February ahead of the second reading, removes a controversial clause stipulating prison terms of up to 10 years for vaguely defined offenses, according to CPJ’s review and an analysis by the Washington, D.C.-based International Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL).

    Under the bill, externally funded nonprofits must apply to a public register of “foreign representatives” if they participate in activities defined by the law as “political”—including “disseminating … opinions on decisions taken by state organs,” issuing public appeals to state organs and officials, and “shaping socio-political views and convictions, including by conducting surveys of public opinion.”

    The law would require nonprofits to carry out a costly independent audit report each year, according to the ICNL. It would also grant authorities the right to request their internal documents, to send government representatives to participate in nonprofits’ internal activities, and to check—by as-yet-unspecified means—whether their activities and expenditures correspond to the aims listed in their articles of incorporation, it said. The U.N. special rapporteurs said these clauses “may amount to almost unrestricted administrative control over these associations.”

    Authorities would have the power to suspend the activities of nonprofits for up to six months and freeze their bank accounts if they fail to declare themselves as foreign representatives or to label their publications after receiving a warning. Nonprofits that fail to rectify such omissions after suspension can be liquidated by the courts.

    In his letter to Blinken, Japarov said Kyrgyzstan needed to ensure financial transparency of media outlets and NGOs. However, Aibek Askarbekov, an independent human rights lawyer, told CPJ that authorities already had full access to financial data of nonprofits, which are required to publish information about sources of income and expenditures online. The bill instead aims at “exerting tight control” over nonprofits, he said.

    Parliamentary approval of the bill comes amid an unprecedented crackdown on independent reporting in a country previously seen as a regional haven for the free press. In January, Kyrgyz authorities arrested 11 journalists linked to the investigative outlet Temirov Live and raided the privately owned news agency 24.kg. In February, authorities shuttered the prominent news website Kloop.

    CPJ’s emails to Kyrgyzstan’s parliament, lawmaker Nadira Narmatova, who introduced the bill to parliament, and the Office of the President requesting comment on the bill did not receive any replies.


    This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Arlene Getz/CPJ Editorial Director.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • India Brings Contentious Law Into Force


    This content originally appeared on Human Rights Watch and was authored by Human Rights Watch.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Hanoi asks Beijing to abide by law while drawing baseline in Gulf of Tonkin

    Vietnam has requested that China respect international law and bilateral agreements with Hanoi after Beijing drew a new baseline in the Gulf of Tonkin. 

    The baseline is deemed as “excessive” by analysts, with one suggesting the U.S. should conduct a freedom of navigation operation to challenge it.

    Radio Free Asia was the first Western media to report the announcement earlier this month of a new baseline that defines China’s territory in the northern part of the area known in China as the Beibu Gulf.

    This baseline, which Beijing said was set in accordance with Chinese law, did not exist before.

    Vietnamese foreign ministry spokesperson Pham Thu Hang on Thursday said that “all coastal countries need to abide by the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)” when drawing the territorial baseline, used to calculate the width of the territorial waters and other maritime zones.

    She highlighted the necessity for these baselines to  not affect the lawful rights and interests of other countries, including the freedom of navigation and the freedom of transit passage through straits used for international maritime activities.

    The spokeswoman stopped short of rejecting the new Chinese baseline and instead called on Beijing to “respect and abide by the agreement on the delimitation of the territorial seas, exclusive economic zones and continental shelves of the two countries in the Gulf of Tonkin signed in 2000, as well as the 1982 UNCLOS.”

    tonkin-gulf-baseline.png
    China’s new baseline (in red) in northern Gulf of Tonkin. (Google Maps/RFA)

    Beijing has yet to respond to Hanoi’s statement but the Chinese foreign ministry’s Department of Boundary and Ocean Affairs said on its official WeChat account earlier that the announcement of the baseline was a necessary act to exercise national sovereignty and jurisdiction.

    Encroachment on shared waters

    The Gulf of Tonkin, or Vinh Bac Bo in Vietnamese, is highly important to both Vietnam and China not only in terms of economic development but also defense and security.

    After nine years of negotiation, in 2000 Hanoi and Beijing signed a Maritime Boundary Delimitation Agreement to clearly demarcate each other’s territorial seas, exclusive economic zones and continental shelves in the Gulf of Tonkin.

    Some analysts say the new baseline won’t affect Vietnam’s economic interests much as long as the signed agreement is observed but some are concerned that Beijing would use it as a pretext to push Hanoi to renegotiate the boundary agreement.

    “China’s announcement of its baseline in the Gulf of Tonkin is a step up the ladder of escalation in its strategy of ratcheting up assertiveness in the South China Sea,” said Alexander Vuving, a professor at the Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies in Hawaii.

    “The new baseline puts Vietnam’s before a fait accompli,” he said, “It gives reasons for China to question the agreement that Beijing and Hanoi signed off in 2000 and push the boundary closer to the Vietnamese coast.”

    tonkin-gulf-baseline_explainer.png

    UNCLOS stipulates that the drawing of straight baselines “must not depart to any appreciable extent from the general direction of the coast, and the sea areas lying within the lines must be sufficiently closely linked to the land domain to be subject to the regime of internal waters.”

    The new Chinese baseline at some points encroaches about 50 nautical miles (93 kilometers) on international waters and on average, “it represents an encroachment of 20 to 30 nautical miles upon international waters,” according to Vuving.

    “China’s baseline in the Tonkin Gulf is not in line with UNCLOS and can be rejected by an international court,” the security expert said.

    Challenging China’s excessive claims 

    “China’s unilateral creeping excessive claims in other countries’ maritime and territorial domains even while a border resolution instrument is in existence, are becoming a regular event,” said Pooja Bhatt, an independent maritime security analyst.

    Vietnam, as well as other countries in the same situation, should protest against this move, raise the issue at bilateral level and also bring international attention to it, she said. 

    “Keeping silence to save immediate Chinese backlash will harm countries’ future territorial integrity and national interests.”

    The new expansive baseline would affect freedom of navigation activities in the area as no foreign vessels or aircraft are allowed to make so-called innocent passage through a country’s internal waters inside the baseline.

    China also requires permission or notification before a foreign warship can sail through its territorial sea, measured 12 nautical miles outward from the baseline. Beijing has repeatedly protested against U.S. warships’ sailing in waters near the Paracel and Spratly archipelagos, which Washington insists is conducted in accordance with international law.  

    Vuving from the Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for Security suggested that several other countries may dispute China’s new baseline and the U.S. “may conduct a freedom of navigation operation to physically challenge China’s excessive claims.”

    Edited by Mike Firn and Taejun Kang. 






    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Radio Free Asia.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Hong Kong blasts criticism of its Article 23 security law

    The Hong Kong government, poised to pass its stricter “Article 23” national security law next week, blasted criticism of the bill from rights experts who say it will undermine freedom of religion in the city.

    The Safeguarding National Security bill, currently before the Legislative Council, includes sentences of up to life imprisonment for treason, insurrection, sabotage and mutiny, and 20 years for espionage. It can punish people 10 years for crimes linked to “state secrets” and “sedition,” and allow the passports of anyone who flees overseas to be revoked.

    Critics say the ruling Communist Party has a broad and vaguely defined interpretation of many of the crimes in the bill, and that “national security crimes” are already being used to prosecute people for peaceful dissent and political opposition.

    Hong Kong Justice Secretary Paul Lam warned last week that anyone who hears that another person has committed “treason” but not reported it could be jailed for up to 14 years, once the law takes effect.

    This “has grave implications for the confidentiality of Confession in the Catholic Church and other Christian traditions,” according to a letter signed by 16 experts and published by Hong Kong Watch on March 13.

    “The new law could force a priest to reveal what has been said in Confession, against his will and conscience and in total violation of the privacy of the individual confession,” the group said.

    ENG_CHN_HKNatSec_03142024.2.jpg
    People attend a Catholic church service in Hong Kong on June 4, 2020. (Dale de la Rey/AFP)

    A Hong Kong government spokesman said Hong Kong Watch is an “anti-China organization,” and its members were “frontline destabilizing forces.”

    He said ordinary citizens were in no danger of committing treason, which he defined as “levying war against China, or instigating a foreign country to invade China with force,” and called their letter a “blatant, shameless and barbaric intervention.”

    Advocating for democracy is a crime

    Under the “Article 23” legislation, any attempt to push for legislative changes or criticism of the authorities could be regarded as sedition, and any contact with overseas individuals or organizations could be prosecuted as courting foreign interference, the letter said.

    Under another clause, “advocating for democracy and the restoration of civil liberties in Hong Kong, anywhere in the world, could now constitute a crime and result in the cancellation of one’s Hong Kong passport,” it said.

    ENG_CHN_HKNatSec_03142024.3.jpg
    Pro-democracy activists shout slogans during a candlelight vigil to protest the national security law in Hong Kong on Feb. 25, 2003. (Vincent Yu/AP)

    The new law has been rebooted three decades after being shelved following mass protests against it in 2003 and fast-tracked through the legislature in mere days after Chinese officials said it should be completed “as soon as possible” at the National People’s Congress in Beijing last week.

    It looks likely to be made law next week.

    The experts said that the “vague provisions within the law … open the potential for politically-motivated prosecutions under illegitimate ‘national security’ grounds,” pointing to clauses allowing the extension of detention without charge and the prevention of contact between arrestees and their lawyers.

    ‘More like mainland China’

    Taiwanese national security expert Shih Chien-yu said the legislation will have an indelible impact on Hong Kong, which was once promised the continuation of its traditional rights and freedoms for 50 years after the 1997 handover to Chinese rule.

    “The Article 23 legislation basically will make Hong Kong even more like mainland China,” Shih told RFA Cantonese. “The penalties are very heavy, mostly more than three years.”

    Shih predicted that many businesspeople will leave Hong Kong because of it.

    Lawmakers completed their detailed review of the bill on Thursday, adding in a strengthened supervisory role for the Committee for Safeguarding National Security, which is itself under the direct supervision of the central government in Beijing.

    London-based rights group Amnesty International called on the government to “step back from the brink” and halt the legislation. Hong Kong “is now taking repression to the next level,” the group’s China Director Sarah Brooks said in a March 8 statement.

    “The apparent overarching purpose of Article 23 is to stifle any and all criticism of the Chinese and Hong Kong authorities and their policies, within the city and globally,” she said.

    Translated with additional reporting by Luisetta Mudie. Edited by Malcolm Foster.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Gigi Lee, Alice Yam and Cheryl Tung for RFA Cantonese.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Israeli human rights groups accuse country of failing to abide by ICJ’s Gaza aid ruling

    Exclusive: 12 prominent organisations sign open letter criticising lack of humanitarian access

    Twelve of Israel’s most prominent human rights organisations have signed an open letter accusing the country of failing to comply with the international court of justice’s (ICJ) provisional ruling that it should facilitate access of humanitarian aid into Gaza.

    The court in The Hague made a number of legal requirements of Israel when it issued a provisional ruling in late January in response to South Africa’s complaint accusing the state of committing genocide in its military campaign in Gaza.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Treason could mean life sentence under new Hong Kong national security law

    Debate has begun on Article 23 – legislation designed to bring laws closer to those of mainland China

    Hong Kong’s government has released the draft text of a new national security law that would further tighten control on the city and bring its laws closer in line with mainland China.

    The law, known as Article 23, is a domestic piece of legislation defining and penalising crimes related to national security.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • [Sarah Leah Whitson] Gaza, International Law & the Biden Presidency

    Julia Conley, staff writer for Common Dreams writes, “Along with persistent protests at public events held by President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, recent polling is continuously demonstrating that the White House’s vehement support for Israel’s bombardment of Gaza despite the rising civilian death toll is not winning them accolades among the voters whose backing they depend on in the upcoming election.” Conley cites a recent poll that “50% of 2020 Biden voters believe the Israeli assault that the U.S. has helped fund is a genocide.” Young Democrats in particular are highly critical of the administration’s policy dimming Biden’s reelection hopes.


    This content originally appeared on AlternativeRadio and was authored by info@alternativeradio.org.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Junta imposes martial law in rebel-controlled Shan state townships

    Myanmar’s junta has declared martial law in three northern Shan state townships seized by ethnic rebels during an ongoing offensive, prompting concern from residents who fear the military is planning a push to retake the areas.

    The junta has declared martial law in more than 60 townships across the country, including in Sagaing, Magwe, Tanintharyi and Bago regions, as well as in Chin state. The designation has been used as a justification by the military to impose heavy punishments on residents on the basis of suspicion alone. 

    Observers say the junta had refrained from declaring martial law in Namhsan, Mantong and Namtu townships in northern Shan state with the hope the Ta’ang National Liberation Army, or TNLA, would join a ceasefire agreement. The declaration, announced Monday, is an indication that negotiations have stalled, they said.

    The TNLA, the Arakan Army, and the Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army together make up the ethnic Three Brotherhood Alliance, which in October launched an offensive known as Operation 1027 against the military in northern Shan state, which borders China.

    Less than two months after the start of Operation 1027, the TNLA captured Namsan, Mantong and Namtu, on Dec. 15, 22 and 28. Since then, the ethnic army’s top leadership has regularly conducted public meetings with what they say is an emphasis on a “community-based governance system” in the townships.

    In Namtu, municipal, healthcare and electricity services have been restored, according to residents, and inhabitants who fled earlier fighting have mostly returned home.

    While the TNLA remains the de facto leadership in the three townships, the junta’s imposition of martial law technically transfers their administrative and judicial oversight to the commander of the military’s Northeastern Command, based in the region’s largest town Lashio.

    Residents told RFA Burmese that the declaration of martial law came “just as the situation began to stabilize,” and said they now fear renewed clashes between the military and the TNLA.

    “We are now under TNLA governance, and the junta no longer exists here,” said a resident of Namtu who, like others interviewed for this report, spoke on condition of anonymity due to security concerns. Now that martial law has been declared, it’s as if they could attack us whenever they want.”

    All three townships are within 160 kilometers (100 miles) of the Northeastern Command, the resident noted, which “adds to our unease.”

    “We may need to prepare trenches and bomb shelters once again,” she said.

    ‘Even less secure’

    A resident of Namsan told RFA that while the situation in her township wasn’t safe before, “now it feels even less secure.”

    “The use of airplanes to drop bombs and the indiscriminate use of heavy weaponry add to our concerns,” she said. “While some people have not yet returned to their homes, others have just come back.”

    An official from the TNLA news and information department told RFA that the junta’s declaration of martial law in the three townships was no surprise.

    “That’s just what they do,” he said. “During the height of fighting, the junta declared martial law in [eight northern Shan state] townships … now, post-battle, announcing martial law in these three townships aligns with their strategic approach.”

    On Nov. 12, as Operation 1027 reached a crescendo, the junta declared martial law in the townships of Lashio, Kutkai, Kunlong, Hsenwi, Namhkam, Muse, and Chinshwehaw, as well as in Laukkai, in the Kokang Self-Administered Zone. A curfew remains in effect in the townships, with movement restricted between the hours of 6 pm and 6 am.

    The Three Brotherhood Alliance captured 16 cities in Shan state, including Muse and Chinshwehaw, as part of the offensive before agreeing to a ceasefire in China-brokered talks with junta representatives on Jan. 11.

    An ex-military official later said it was not sustainable and less than a week after the agreement, both sides were accused of violating it in a skirmish.

    Last week, the two sides met again in the Chinese city of Kunming for talks that focused on reopening parts of the border with China that had been shut down during the fighting and preserving the ceasefire.

    ‘It’s clear they’ve given up’

    But a political commentator and former military officer told RFA that peace in northern Shan state remains tenuous.

    He said that while the junta had been holding out hope that the TNLA would join Myanmar’s Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement, or NCA, the declaration of martial law in the townships under its control indicates that the military leadership no longer sees that as an option.

    “[The junta was] indecisive from the beginning, and even was vacillating [on how to deal with the TNLA],” he said. “Now, it’s clear that they’ve given up trying [to bring them into the NCA].”

    The NCA was introduced in 2015 to end years of fighting over minority rights and self-determination. Since then, some 10 ethnic groups have signed the agreement.

    Ta’ang National Liberation Army troops pose after capturing a Myanmar junta camp in Mantong on Dec. 23, 2023. (PSLF/TNLA News and Information Department)
    Ta’ang National Liberation Army troops pose after capturing a Myanmar junta camp in Mantong on Dec. 23, 2023. (PSLF/TNLA News and Information Department)

    The junta’s declaration of martial law in Namhsan, Mantong and Namtu follows a Jan. 28 declaration in the Shan state townships of Mongmit and Mabein. The two townships had earlier been seized by the Kachin Independence Army.

    The latest declaration brings to 13 the number of townships under martial law in Shan state.

    Township captured

    The imposition of martial law on Namsan, Mantong and Namtu came amid reports on Tuesday that the Arakan Army, or AA, had captured Ponnagyun township in western Myanmar’s Rakhine state, where it continues to battle the military despite the Three Brotherhood Alliance ceasefire in Shan state.

    In a statement, the AA claimed that Ponnagyun is under its “complete control” after 13 days of fighting, from Feb. 21 to March 4, culminating in the capture of the military’s Light Infantry Division 550 base there on Monday.

    It said its fighters had seized “several bodies” of junta troops, including that of junta Tactical Commander Col. Myo Min Ko Ko, Light Infantry Battalion 208 Commander Col. Pyo Thu Aung and Light Infantry Battalion 550 Commander Maj. Saw Htwe.

    The AA also claimed to be treating those who surrendered and their families “well,” and to have defended Ponnagyun from attacks by three junta naval vessels.

    A resident of Rakhine confirmed to RFA that “the entire township of Ponnagyun lies under the AA’s control, with no trace of the junta.”

    He said that after the AA assumed control of Ponnagyun, the junta targeted the area with a dozen air strikes and also attacked a nearby bridge because they were “concerned that the AA might advance toward Rathedaung township next.”

    The junta has remained silent about the AA’s seizure of Ponnagyun. Attempts by RFA to contact Hla Thein, the attorney general of Rakhine and the junta’s spokesman for the state, went unanswered Tuesday.

    In the three months since the AA ended a ceasefire in Rakhine state that had been in place since the military’s Feb. 1, 2021, coup d’etat, the ethnic army has taken over the Rakhine townships of Pauktaw, Minbya, Mrauk-U, Kyauktaw, Myebon, Taungpyo, and Ponnagyun, as well as Paletwa township in neighboring Chin state.

    The AA is currently fighting for control of Buthidaung, Rathedaung, Maungdaw, and Ramree townships in Rakhine.

    Translated by Kalyar Lwin. Edited by Joshua Lipes and Malcolm Foster.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA Burmese.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Tech bros need to realise deepfake porn ruins lives – and the law has to catch up

    Taylor Swift is just one of countless victims of deepfake videos. Firms feeding off this abuse should pay for the harm they cause

    Imagine finding that someone has taken a picture of you from the internet and superimposed it on a sexually explicit image available online. Or that a video appears showing you having sex with someone you have never met.

    Imagine worrying that your children, partner, parents or colleagues might see this and believe it is really you. And that your frantic attempts to take it off social media keep failing, and the fake “you” keeps reappearing and multiplying. Imagine realising that these images could remain online for ever and discovering that no laws exist to prosecute the people who created it.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • China’s secrets law could mean new risks linked to ‘work secrets’

    China’s latest piece of security legislation will have a further chilling effect on foreign investment and the economy by creating a new category of confidential information called ‘work secrets,’ analysts said in recent commentaries and interviews with RFA Mandarin.

    President Xi Jinping on Tuesday signed an executive order that will see the Law on Safeguarding State Secrets take effect from May 1, after the law was revised and adopted by the National People’s Congress Standing Committee on Feb. 27.

    The move follows a number of police raids last year on foreign consultancy firms including Mintz Group and Bain & Co, prompting concerns from foreign investors that Beijing’s widening national security focus could hurt investor confidence. 

    All government departments and state-owned enterprises will be required under the law to “determine the confidentiality level” of state secrets they work with, and implement new rules about managing a “declassification” period for employees who leave their posts, including bans on overseas travel and new employment, state media reported.

    “During the declassification period, personnel who have access to secrets are not allowed to work or leave the country … nor are they allowed to disclose state secrets in any way,” state broadcaster CCTV reported. 

    What are ‘work secrets’?

    However, the measures don’t just apply to state secrets — they will also apply to “work secrets,” according to Article 64 of the new legislation.

    “Work secrets” refers to “information produced or collected by departments in the performance of their duties, the leaking of which would cause an adverse impact,” according to Chinese law expert Jeremy Daum.

    ENG_CHN_WorkSecrets_02292024.2.jpg
    Chinese police are seen during a raid at the office of the Capvision consultancy firm in Shanghai in this undated photo. (Screenshot from CCTV via AP)

    In a commentary on his China Law Translate blog, Daum said an earlier draft had defined a “work secret” more narrowly “but the final version seems even broader.”

    “Work secrets and internal documents aren’t a new issue, but it is unfortunate to see them further enshrined in law,” he wrote, adding that the clause could lead to “overzealous identification” of work secrets, leading to increased risk for workers and decreased transparency for the general public.

    China has also recently broadened the scope of its Counterespionage Law, and detained an employee of Japanese drugmaker Astellas Pharma last March on suspicion of “spying,” prompting a protest from Foreign Minister Yoshimasa Hayashi.

    Market research

    Xia Ming, professor of politics at New York’s City University, said the new law could have an impact on foreign companies wanting to carry out market research in China.

    “The first thing any company that wants to invest in China does is to carry out market research on China,” Xia said. “But all kinds of data are regarded as confidential by China, because they touch on the political security [of the regime].”

    “They think people could interpret specific and minor fluctuations in the data to create information that is unfavorable to their political system and regime [stability],” he said. “So everything is confidential.”

    U.S.-based economist Li Hengqing said there has already been an impact from last year’s legislation and consultancy firm raids.

    “Everyone is definitely feeling the chill now,” Li said. “The more [Beijing] does this, the more foreign businesses and entrepreneurs will be discouraged from investing in China.”

    ENG_CHN_WorkSecrets_02292024.3.jpg
    Staffers wait for visitors under display of CCTV images at the Hikvision booth, a state-owned surveillance equipment manufacturer, during the Security China 2023 expo in Beijing, June 7, 2023. (Ng Han Guan/AP)

    He said the move runs counter to recent claims from the ruling Chinese Communist Party Central Committee that it is expanding its economy to more global participation.

    “Preferential policies for foreign investors would take them in the complete opposite direction,” Li said.

    Stability of the regime

    But for Beijing, all sensitive information must now “adhere to the overall concept of national security,” and follow the ruling party’s approach to managing secrets, state media reported.

    According to the party’s Central Security Office director Li Zhaozong, the revised law provides a “strong legal guarantee for better protecting national sovereignty, security and development interests.”

    Writing in party newspaper the People’s Daily on Feb. 28, Li said the same principles of secrets management would apply to any domain into which the party’s national security approach is extended, although he didn’t mention “work secrets” by name.

    According to Li Hengqing, that can mean any area that affects the security of Xi Jinping’s grip on power or that of the ruling party.

    “It’s all about the stability of the regime,” Li said. “Xi Jinping once said, ‘What is the point of economic development if we neglect the stability of the regime?’”

    “He doesn’t really care about the people’s livelihood or the country’s economic development,” he said.

    Xia Ming said the law will also have a huge impact on internet service providers, who will be required to cooperate with the authorities in investigating any cases involving the leaking of unauthorized information online.

    Translated with additional reporting by Luisetta Mudie. Edited by Malcolm Foster.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Jing Wei for RFA Mandarin.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Ghana intensifies crackdown on rights of LGBTQ people and activists

    New legislation threatens prison sentences of up to five years for ‘wilful promotion, sponsorship or support of LGBTQ+ activities’

    Ghana’s parliament has passed legislation that intensifies a crackdown on the rights of LGBTQ people and those promoting lesbian, gay or other non-conventional sexual or gender identities in the West African country.

    The new legislation passed on Wednesday imposes a prison sentence of up to five years for the “wilful promotion, sponsorship or support of LGBTQ+ activities”.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Secret tribunal to hear claims police spied on Northern Ireland journalists

    Judges urged to keep proceedings as open as possible in case relating to Trevor Birney and Barry McCaffrey

    Allegations that UK police and intelligence spied on investigative journalists to identify their sources will be heard by a secret tribunal on Wednesday, with judges urged to ensure as much as possible takes place in open court.

    Trevor Birney and Barry McCaffrey asked the investigatory powers tribunal (IPT) to look into whether police in Northern Ireland and Durham, as well as MI5 and GCHQ, used intrusive surveillance powers against them.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • A civilised country would not have made Shamima Begum stateless | Letters

    Readers respond to the recent court of appeal ruling that upheld the UK government’s decision to strip the 24-year-old of British citizenship

    The case of Shamima Begum is less significant in that her appeals have failed under UK law, but rather in that UK law has been written to breach our obligations to follow the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 15.2, which states “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality” (Shamima Begum ruling shows UK wants to wash its hands of such prisoners, 23 February).

    I have a strong belief in human rights being universal and the UK adhering to these principles. When Ms Begum was stripped of her birthright British nationality she was not a citizen of Bangladesh, which stated that it would not accept her request for citizenship, ergo she was made arbitrarily stateless, contrary to international law. The progress of her case through the UK courts will surely end at the human rights courts, where the UK will lose.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Oscar nomination gives Bobi Wine new hope of toppling Uganda’s regime

    After years of repression, a film about Bobi Wine’s heroic stand against Yoweri Museveni has given new life to the opposition

    When the Ugandan musician turned politician Bobi Wine ran for president, his 2020 campaign was thwarted by violent crackdowns by Yoweri Museveni’s regime. Since the election, Bobi Wine – whose real name is Robert Kyagulanyi Ssentamu – and his wife, Barbie, say that, from phone tapping to abductions of his supporters, things have been “pretty much the same” in many ways.

    With one key difference: the release of the feature documentary Bobi Wine: The People’s President.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Who is Shamima Begum and what are her prospects of returning to UK?

    Background to the legal battle as the court of appeal decides whether removal of her UK citizenship was unlawful

    The court of appeal’s decision due on Friday on whether Shamima Begum, who travelled to Syria to join Islamic State as a child, was unlawfully stripped of her UK citizenship is the latest step in a long-running battle she has fought against the government. Here is the history of the case and why it has attracted so much publicity.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Hong Kong official slams groups’ criticism of new security law

    Hong Kong security chief Chris Tang has lashed out at the London-based rights group Hong Kong Watch after it issued a statement signed by 86 groups saying that forthcoming security legislation would have “devastating consequences” for human rights in the city.

    The new legislation, called Article 23, criminalizes treason, insurrection, the theft of state secrets and other national security offenses. It is billed by the government as a way to close “loopholes” in the already stringent 2020 National Security Law.

    But Hong Kong Watch and the other groups said the definitions of such crimes were vague in the bill, and would criminalize people’s peaceful exercise of their human rights.

    “The proposed law includes a number of procedural changes that will dramatically undermine the Hong Kong people’s due process and fair trial rights,” said joint statement signed by 86 organizations.

    “The introduction of Article 23 will bring further devastating consequences for human rights beyond those brought by the National Security Law when it was imposed by Beijing in 2020,” said the statement, which called on governments to publicly oppose the law, and for those responsible to be sanctioned.

    “The last time the authorities attempted to introduce Article 23 in 2003, over 500,000 Hong Kongers took to the streets in protests with the plans abandoned,” the statement said, adding:” But now they can no longer speak out against it.”

    The bill is highly likely to be passed by the Legislative Council now that electoral rules have been changed to allow only “patriots” to run for election.

    ‘Slander and intimidation’

    Tang, who has previously claimed that recent waves of mass popular pro-democracy movements in recent years were the work of “foreign forces” operating in Hong Kong, criticized Hong Kong Watch for using “gangster tactics.”

    Tang told a news conference in Hong Kong on Monday that most of the groups that signed the letter, which include Freedom House, Chinese Human Rights Defenders, Hongkongers in Britain, Human Rights Watch and the Index on Censorship, were “anti-China organizations seeking to disrupt Hong Kong.”

    ENG_CHN_HKNatSec_02212024.2.jpg
    Demonstrators in Hong Kong with tape over their mouths protest the city government’s anti-subversion bill, Feb. 14, 2003. (Anat Givon/AP)

    He accused “anti-China and anti-Hong Kong” organizations of “slander, intimidation … wrong, misleading and making something out of nothing,” after they criticized the planned law, which analysts have warned will broaden the definition of what is a “national security” matter still further.

    “These comments are slander and intimidation by external forces who want to endanger our national security,” he said, brushing aside the possibility of further sanctions on Hong Kong officials.

    “The more you sanction us, the more it appears that we’re doing the right thing,” Tang said, likening the law to putting in “doors and windows to prevent burglaries,” and accusing the groups who signed the statement of “gangster” tactics.

    Tang accused Radio Free Asia of reporting what he described as “false” criticism that the new law would target media organizations. He called the media outlet a “foreign force” that was misleading the people of Hong Kong. 

    He said only those who “deliberately” set out to slander the government could be liable under the planned law.

    RFA, funded by the U.S. Congress to provide independent news in countries that lack a free press, has not publicly responded to Tang’s comments.

    ENG_CHN_HKNatSec_02212024.3.JPG
    Hong Kong’s Secretary for Justice Paul Lam, left, Chief Executive John Lee, center, and Secretary for Security Chris Tang attend a press conference on Article 23 in Hong Kong, Jan. 30, 2024. (Lam Yik/Reuters)

    Tang said the public response to the Article 23 legislation had been welcoming, and that claims that the new law would boost police powers to detain people at will were “attempts to intimidate the people of Hong Kong.”

    “I believe that our friends in the media will not endanger national security,” he said, in response to concerns that media organizations could be targeted under the law for platforming views deemed a threat to national security.

    Chief Executive John Lee said on Tuesday that his administration will seek to pass the new law as soon as possible.

    “Our work on legislation under Article 23 of the Basic Law will be advanced at full speed,” Lee said. “The government will move forward, and I believe that the Legislative Council will fulfill their constitutional responsibilities in this regard as soon as possible.”

    Translated by Luisetta Mudie. Edited by Malcolm Foster.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Alice Yam for RFA Cantonese.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • High court rejects legal challenge against UK arms sales to Israel

    Campaigners to appeal after court declines to block export licences despite concerns about human rights breaches in Gaza war

    The high court has dismissed a case urging the suspension of UK arms sales to Israel.

    The legal challenge against the UK Department for Business and Trade was launched in December by the Palestinian human rights organisation Al-Haq and the UK-based Global Legal Action Network (Glan).

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Julian Assange risks ‘flagrant denial of justice’ if tried in US, London court told

    Lawyers seek permission at high court to appeal against WikiLeaks founder’s extradition

    Julian Assange faces the risk of a “flagrant denial of justice” if tried in the US, his lawyers have told a permission to appeal hearing in London, which could result in the WikiLeaks founder being extradited within days if unsuccessful.

    Assange, who published thousands of classified military and diplomatic documents relating to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, could be jailed for up to 175 years – “a grossly disproportionate punishment” – if convicted in the US, the high court heard on Tuesday.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Horror and hypocrisy in the wake of Alexei Navalny’s death | Letters

    Bringing the Russian authorities to international justice over the death of the opposition leader is difficult, but not impossible, says Prof Philip Leach, while Robert Frazer wonders what gives the west the right to judge Putin

    The news of Alexei Navalny’s sudden death in an Arctic penal colony has led to numerous calls for the authorities in Russia to be held responsible (Western leaders point finger at Putin after Alexei Navalny’s death in jail, 16 February). They are certainly answerable according to human rights law, but achieving accountability against Russia has become even harder since its expulsion from the Council of Europe in 2022, as a consequence of the invasion of Ukraine. As a result, Navalny’s family cannot now petition the European court of human rights to get to the truth about his death.

    Nevertheless, UN bodies such as the human rights committee still have jurisdiction over Russia, and cases already in the European court pipeline will be heard. Just last month, the court decided that the Russian government had a case to answer in a lawsuit brought by myself and others on behalf of Navalny, his Anti-Corruption Foundation and supporters in response to the punitive steps taken against them in 2019, including absurd criminal prosecutions on charges of money laundering, their designation as “foreign agents”, raids on their homes and offices, and the freezing of bank accounts.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.