The non-governmental organization denounces Hong Kong National Security Act, “which makes it impossible to […] for human rights organizations to work freely and without fear”.
The Amnesty International organization announced, Monday, October 25, the closure of its offices in Hongkong. “This decision, taking the heavy heart, is due to the Hongkong National Security Act, which makes it impossible in practice for human rights organizations to work freely and without fear of serious reprisals on the part of the government”, explained in a statement the president of the International Bureau of the NGO, Anjhula Mya Singh Bais.
“Hong Kong has long been an ideal regional basis for international civil society organizations,” she continued. “But the fact that local rights and trade union groups have recently been targeted is the signal of an intensification of the campaign by the authorities to rid the city of any dissenting voices. It is more and more Difficult for us to continue working in an environment as unstable, “added the President of Amnesty.
The NGO has two offices in Hong Kong: its local and its regional headquarters for Southeast Asia and the Pacific. The first will close on October 31 and the second by the end of 2021.
“Environmental and Perpetual Environment Uncertainty”
Adopted in June 2020, the National Security Act has radically transformed the political, cultural and legal landscape of the territory. According to Beijing, this draconian legislation has enabled Hong Kong to regain stability after the sometimes violent proprietary manifestations of 2019. The text severely punishes any offense considered by China as constitutive of secession, subversion, collusion with foreign forces or terrorism.
Human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, denounce the vagueness of these offenses. “The environmental and perpetual environmental environment created by the National Security Act makes it impossible to know which activities could lead to criminal penalties,” lamented Amnesty International.
More than 70 people, including a large part of the most prominent proprietary activists, were charged under this law, most for just having expressed political opinions now illegal. Dozens of associations and unions have shaped themselves in recent months of fear of being worried by the authorities.