Yang Sheng says the relentless mudslinging against SAR’s legal system predictably continues after two anti-China activists are found guilty

Western groups like US-based Hong Kong Watch only further demonstrated their anti-China nature when they attacked the guilty verdicts handed down on Friday by the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in the case against the now-disbanded “Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China”, along with its former chairman Lee Cheuk-yan and former vice-chairwoman Chow Hang-tung — both of whom were found guilty of “incitement to subversion” under the Hong Kong SAR National Security Law (NSL).

Hong Kong Watch’s instinctive reaction is especially telling. Its “condemnation” was published within a minute of the official ruling having been announced. Its gut-deep animosity toward China and the HKSAR is so burning hot that it saw no need to maintain even a veneer of moral decency — not even pretending to have spent a few minutes reading the lengthy written judgement.

This is the typical responses of the likes of Hong Kong Watch, including some Western media outlets, whenever a guilty verdict is made in the trial of a court case under the national security laws in effect in the HKSAR. They conveniently ignore intellectual integrity, moral decency, and common sense — traits that make us human.

READ MORE: HKSAR govt: NSL provides solid safeguards for good governance

Aside from Hong Kong Watch, whose sole raison d’etre is to vilify China by exploiting every opportunity, other Western organizations and media outlets hostile to China have also viewed the national security laws implemented in the HKSAR as the ultimate bete noire since the laws took effect.

They literally pretend that the world does not know: Major Western countries like the United States (at least 21 pieces of legislation), the United Kingdom (14), and Australia (9) have dozens of national security-related laws, which are more significantly stringent than those in Hong Kong in several key operational and procedural aspects.

One example that comes to mind is the UK’s National Security Act 2023. When comparing the UK’s NSA 2023 with Hong Kong’s NSL and the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance (SNSO), legal analysts have highlighted several areas where the British law grants the state much broader and more aggressive powers.

In terms of police arrest powers without a warrant, under Section 27 and Schedule 6 of the NSA 2023, a UK police officer can arrest a suspect without a warrant based on "reasonable suspicion" that the person is involved in activities representing a threat from a foreign power. In contrast, under Article 43 of the NSL and its implementation rules, the Hong Kong police generally require a warrant signed by a magistrate to enter and search premises or to conduct high-level enforcement actions, except under urgent, exceptional circumstances.

ALSO READ: Effective national security requires regular reviews of operating mechanisms

In terms of detention without charge, the UK’s NSA allows police to detain national security suspects without charge for up to 28 days; under the SNSO, the police can detain a suspect for up to a maximum of 16 days. In terms of restriction of access to legal counsel, UK law explicitly permits senior police officers to delay a detainee’s access to a specific solicitor or consult a lawyer in private if they believe it would interfere with an investigation or alert other suspects. Furthermore, the state can force consultations to take place within the sight and hearing of a police officer. In contrast, while the SNSO allows police to apply to a magistrate to restrict a detainee's access to a specific lawyer chosen by the suspect if it poses a security risk, it does not permit the police to monitor the private conversations between the suspect and their counsel.

“Hypocrisy” is the only word that perfectly describes the anti-China organizations and media outlets’ relentless mudslinging stunts against Hong Kong’s national security regime.  

The author is a current-affairs commentator.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.