Hong Kong economic and trade officials convicted of spying on the UK: cross-border repression extends from bidding to overseeing overseas agencies

The Central Criminal Court in London ruled in May that two people related to the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office in London violated the British National Security Act 2023.Amnesty International UK saysBill Yuen Chung-biu, Managing Director of the Hong Kong Office for Economic and Trade, and Peter Wai Chi-leung, a former British border law enforcement officer, were convicted of assisting foreign intelligence agencies in the case, which has long been described by Hong Kong’s exile community as “cross-border repression” from political disputes to concrete verdicts in the UK’s criminal justice system.

Amnesty International said evidence in the case involved surveillance, harassment and tracking of Hong Kong activists in the UK and mentioned using the data base of the Ministry of Internal Affairs to search for activists and asylum seekers.The UK government in its latest six-month reportIt also listed the Hong Kong National Security Police’s arrest warrants and remuneration orders against overseas Democrats as cross-border repression, citing concerns over the United Nations Special Procedures over overseas Hong Kong activists’ cross-border abuses.

The Hong Kong government has long insisted that national security enforcement is aimed at acts endangering national security rather than normal political opinions, and that overseas searches are carried out according to law. The conflict around overseas law enforcement borders is therefore increasingly direct: Hong Kong authorities claim that its national security laws have overseas effect, while the UK government and human rights organizations believe that surveillance, threatening or suppressing peaceful political activities in the UK affect British sovereignty, criminal law and fundamental freedoms.

A survey of more than 1,000 Hong Kong residents released by the British Hong Kong Surveillance Authority in May said:66% of respondents believe they are at risk of cross-border repression, and 16.8% say hostile persons have infiltrated their Hong Kong communities in the past year.This survey, conducted by the Initiative, is not equivalent to the national official statistics in the UK, but it reveals a remarkable frostbite effect: exile does not necessarily mean political pressure has ended, and relatives, community organizations, personal profiles and public activities can become part of a chain of pressure.

The tools of cross-border repression are also limited to traditional intelligence activities.Human rights organizations and research institutions have continued to record this year incidents such as rewarding Hong Kong activists overseas, family pressures, account and retirement issues, passport and identity document restrictions.U.S. Human Rights Watch said in FebruaryThe Hong Kong court has convicted the former Executive Director of the Hong Kong Democratic Commission of the United States Guo Feng Shui, the father of Guo Feng Shui, of national security creation; the organization believes that this is the first time that the Hong Kong authorities have convicted their families for the peace initiative of overseas activists.

The meaning of the London case is that it shows that the conflict between Hong Kong’s national security system and overseas democratic communities is no longer limited to online speeches, diplomatic protests or prize lists.The British courts have ruled guilty under their national security laws, meaning that the UK judicial system can directly intervene when overseas government associates carry out intelligence assistance or other prohibited acts in the UK.

For Hong Kongers in the UK, this response poses another real question: Criminal cases can deal with specific violations that have been identified, but not necessarily eliminate the fears that have long been formed in the community. The United Committee on Human Rights of the British Parliament has previously pointed out that there are still gaps in the definition, reporting channels, police response and data collection of cross-border repression in the UK. With the continued spread of the overseas effects of Hong Kong political cases, how to protect refugees from continuing freedom of expression, organization and participation in public affairs in their country of residence has become part of the UK’s own issue of rule of law and sovereignty.