Two Hong Kong men were arrested for “inciting”: why the insurance broker's identity entered the SNBP.

The latest case of “incitement” by the State Security Service of Hong Kong has no street gathering and no material leaflets.

On 8 October, the Hong Kong Police announced that on 6 October, the National Security Office had arrested two 38-year-old men and women in Kowloon, suspected of violating article 24 of the National Security Ordinance. The police claimed that they operated several social media pages and published messages with the alleged intent of “incitement” and that they were used to incite hatred against the constitutional order of the HKSAR.

There is also an unusual detail in the case: the arrested man is a licensed insurance broker, and the police specifically stated that he sells and profites from the insurance products through the relevant pages.

Police report why they have taken the initiative to mention insurance income

The Hong Kong Police did not publish all the information in question, but the South China Morning News reported that the two were being targeted for a social media page called “YellowInsuance”.

If only understood in the context of traditional criminal law, insurance sales and political expression were originally distinct activities; In this case, both were placed in the same narrative: the page expression was found to be “incitement”, while the business income was the factual context highlighted by the police.

The police have placed the profit of the sales insurance in the same circular as the media pages in question, making business a key context for public understanding of the case; However, the circular does not show that the sale of insurance itself is an independent element of the offence under article 24 and that it is not appropriate to confuse the two.

“Incitement” from colonial law to a common tool in the national security system

The legal boundaries of political cases have been tightened rapidly after the implementation of the National Security Act in

1. The Preservation of National Security Regulations 2024 further incorporated incitement offences into local national security legislation.

Article 24 carries a maximum sentence of seven years ' imprisonment for the first time.

In the past few years, the crime of incitement has been used for songs, children ' s books, social media, commemorative activities and political slogans. The latest case continues to push the line towards the network community.

After obtaining a court search warrant, the police searched the residence of the two persons and seized their belongings, and they were subsequently granted bail pending their examination.

The chilling effect does not require sentencing in every case

The impact of the national security system has not been limited to the courts.

When an insurance broker knows that his or her own media page may be interpreted as a national security case, other professionals, business, content creators and community operators reassess the costs of political expression.

This is also the deepest change in the political space in Hong Kong: there was a fear that participation in demonstrations would be arrested; What needs to be considered now is whether an essay, a page, a business service will be reconnected to the national security logic.

Beijing has not created a single ban in Hong Kong, but a set of expanding risk calculations.

When every ordinary social identity — journalist, teacher, insurance broker, publisher — can be criminally connected to “national security”, political silence does not have to be enforced by the police on a daily basis, and it will gradually become a choice in the profession and in life.

Legitimate: Statements of speech cannot automatically be equated with commercial crimes

The police refer to article 24 of the Regulations on the Protection of National Security, and the criminal aspects of the case should first be returned to the specific text, the manner in which it was issued and the statutory element of “incitement”. The official communication of 8 October did not disclose the full text of the case nor did it indicate what the insurance transaction itself constituted an offence. It is therefore necessary to analyse business income as a police-intentioned background for investigation; The fact that “sale insurance has been convicted” does not correspond to the information available. The fact that the two persons were granted bail pending trial does not amount to a conviction by a court.