Hong Kong Plans to Authorize Chief Executive to Determine National Security Cases; Practice of 'Fifty Years Unchanged' Promise Warns Taiwan's Pro-Unification Camp
On June 8, the Hong Kong government submitted proposed subsidiary legislation amendments to the Legislative Council, planning to explicitly establish a "certificate" mechanism. According to the plan, if the Chief Executive of Hong Kong determines that relevant acts in a criminal case involve national security, the case can be classified as a national security case, and the relevant procedures under the National Security Law and the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance will apply.
According to public information, this mechanism does not only apply to cases directly involving national security charges. If the acts in the same case are determined to involve national security, even if they are ultimately prosecuted or convicted under other charges, they may still be brought within the scope of national security case handling.
The Hong Kong government stated that the amendments will not introduce new charges, penalties, or enforcement powers, but rather clarify existing legal mechanisms. Chief Executive John Lee stated that some information involving national security is classified, making it more appropriate for the Chief Executive to make the determination.
Under Hong Kong's current national security system, once a case is brought into the national security framework, the defendant may face stricter bail standards, trials conducted by judges designated by the Chief Executive, and some procedures may involve confidentiality arrangements. Legal professionals point out that the certificate issued by the Chief Executive is binding on the courts, and the basis for the relevant determination may not be made public, leaving the defendant with very limited room to challenge such decisions.
Following the 2019 anti-extradition bill movement, Beijing directly implemented the Hong Kong National Security Law in Hong Kong in 2020. In 2024, the Hong Kong Legislative Council unanimously passed the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, also known as Article 23 legislation. Over the past few years, Hong Kong's major opposition political parties, civil organizations, trade unions, and multiple media outlets have successively dissolved or ceased operations, and a large number of pro-democracy figures have been prosecuted, imprisoned, or gone into exile overseas.
This amendment further blurs the boundary between ordinary criminal cases and national security cases.
In the past, the public could at least determine whether a case belonged to a national security case based on the charges. Under the new mechanism, a case originally handled under ordinary criminal law could enter the national security legal system as long as the Chief Executive issues a certificate. The power to determine the nature of a case is shifting further from the courts to the executive authorities.
Hong Kong is forming an operational model where the executive branch defines national security and the judiciary executes the legal consequences thereof. This is distinctly different from the common law tradition long practiced in Hong Kong, yet increasingly close to the expanding national security governance model in mainland China in recent years.
Beijing once promised Hong Kong a high degree of autonomy, governance of Hong Kong by Hong Kong people, and no change for 50 years. Over the past few years, the Hong Kong National Security Law, Article 23 legislation, and the continuously expanding national security system have profoundly changed Hong Kong's original political and legal environment. Now, the Chief Executive has been endowed with even greater power to determine national security, showing that national security powers continue to expand.
Hong Kong has proven once again that the political promises of the Chinese Communist Party cannot constrain its own power. Throughout the history of the Chinese Communist Party, democratic parties, capitalists, intellectuals, ethnic minority regions, and Hong Kong have all received various political promises. When power needs these promises, they are repeatedly emphasized; when power deems these promises hinder its rule, they are reinterpreted, compressed, or even discarded.
The changes in Hong Kong in recent years are not a special case, but a continuation of this governance logic. From the promise of a high degree of autonomy in the Sino-British Joint Declaration to today's continuously expanding national security system, what the outside world sees is not how promises are fulfilled, but how promises are redefined.
For Taiwanese people who still advocate unification with the Chinese Communist Party, Hong Kong has provided the most direct practical sample. The promises Beijing previously made to Hong Kong are highly similar to much of the content publicized to Taiwan today. What is happening in Hong Kong has also become an important basis for Taiwanese society to judge the credibility of these promises.
Historically, quite a few people believed in the promises of the Chinese Communist Party, but what ultimately determines the content of a promise is always the side holding power, not the side receiving the promise. The changes in Hong Kong are not only about Hong Kong, but are also continuously influencing Taiwanese society's judgments on unification, "one country, two systems," and future cross-strait relations.