- 18 -
“Modern experiences show the seditious acts or activities endangering national security now take many diversified forms. Some involve violence or threat of violence. Some involve non-violent means but can be equally damaging. There is no valid basis for criminalising the former but not the latter.”
23. One example of non-violent means given by the Court of Appeal was “malicious dissemination of misinformation”[1]. Whilst we were fully alive that the above-quoted was said in the context of “sedition” acts prohibited by the Crimes Ordinance Cap 200, it could be equally true for other activities which endangered national security. Bearing in mind that the NSL was enacted to “prevent, suppress and punish” conducts and activities which endangered national security, we could not see any reason why the NPC would have so narrowly restricted “other unlawful means” in NSL 22 to acts which would entail the use of “force or threat of force”.
24. After stating the necessity and importance of establishing and improving the legal system and enforcement mechanisms for the HKSAR to safeguard national security at national level, the Explanation went on to state the general requirements and basic principles (總體要求及基本原則):
“In conformity with the above general requirements, the following basic principles must be observed and well grasped.
The first is resolutely safeguarding national security. Safeguarding national security is the requisite for the State’s enduring governance and lasting peace, and for Hong Kong’s long-term prosperity and stability. It is the common responsibility of all the people of China including the people of Hong Kong, as well as the joint responsibility of the State and the HKSAR. Any activities which endanger national sovereignty and security, challenge the power of the Central
- ↑ At footnote [99) of that judgment.
