The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (“Committee”) finished its review sessions of human rights situations of Hong Kong, Macau and mainland China yesterday in Hong Kong time. The Committee will issue the concluding observations on 6 March 2023 to elaborate the Committee’s concerns and recommendations for the three governments.
The Chinese delegation, comprised of 26 mainland Chinese officials, 10 Hong Kong officials and 3 Macau officials, have answered a number of questions raised by the Committee. However, the answers were mostly reiterating the official stances and denying all accusations, without admission of any violations of human rights or promises to improve.
In particular, the Chinese and Hong Kong officials refused to guarantee that no reprisals would be carried out against the civil society organizations (“CSOs”). The Hong Kong officials also defended the National Security Law (“NSL”) and denied the suppression of trade unions by cheery-picking the information. The details are as follows:
Refusing to guarantee no reprisals
As stated in the first day meeting by Michael Windfuhr, the vice-chairperson of the Committee, while the Committee welcomed the contributions of civil societies, he regretted to learn that human rights defenders, NGOs and CSOs within China, Hong Kong and Macau might face difficulties in attending the meetings in person or submitting reports because of their fear of reprisals. He said the Committee was also concerned about the fact that many of the NGOs reported to the Committee or to other treaty bodies are forced to work from exile. Therefore, he asked the Chinese delegation to make sure that no persons and institutions that participating in the review would face retaliation.
However, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs official SUN Lei refused to make such promise expressly. Instead, in his Mandarin speech, he only claimed that the relevant NGOs “should not have the worries in this aspect” (Please refer to the video of the meeting at around 51:05). Similarly, Simon Wong, the Principal Assistant Secretary of the Hong Kong Security Bureau, has only pointed out that “normal interaction and contacts with other countries, regions, and relevant international organizations will continued to be protected pursuant to the Basic Law and the law of HKSAR”, without defining the words “normal interaction and contacts”.
In response to it, the spokesperson of Hong Kong Centre for Human Rights (“HKCHR”) says:
“We are very concerned of and disappointed with the fact that the Chinese and Hong Kong governments refused to promise that they would not retaliate against the CSOs participating in this review. We must emphasize that the contributions of CSOs are essential in assisting the Committee and other treaty bodies to thoroughly understand the real situations of a State Party. The effectiveness of the human rights review will be rigorously diminished if CSOs refrain from providing information to the Committee and other treaty bodies due to threats of reprisals.”
Denying the fact that NSL infringes on human rights
The Committee was very concerned of the impact of the NSL and other national security legislation on the human rights situation of Hong Kong. One member mentioned that the relevant law did not clearly define “national security” and they had the feeling that everything could become some national security issues. Furthermore, given that the government has the power to conclusively decide what matter involves national security, he was concerned of how the government could avoid arbitrary decisions. Another member raised questions of the limitation and censorship imposed by the law on academic freedom, art, culture, books and school curriculums.
However, the Hong Kong officials claimed that the NSL would not infringe on the rights, and the articles therein did expressly protect human rights. Although the UN Human Rights Committee has urged Hong Kong to repeal the NSL last year, Simon Wong stressed that Hong King was still facing different national security threats, and thus “[t]he continued implementation of the Hong Kong National Security Law and other laws safeguarding national security, is essential in enabling and to ensure the continued stability and prosperity of Hong Kong.” He also refused to comment on the NSL case of the pro-democracy media tycoon Jimmy Lai, saying that “as the legal proceedings are still ongoing, no one should, and it is inappropriate for any person to comment on or even interfere with such cases, as it is a matter of sub judice”.
The spokesperson of HKCHR says in response to it:
“The fact is that, since the NSL was enacted, the civic space of Hong Kong has been significantly shrunk. Academic freedom, free speech and freedom of assembly are all infringed upon. A huge number of civil groups disbanded in light of the pressure, while the remaining groups can no longer be as active and outspoken as before. The concerns of the members are all validly based on facts, and HKCHR has already submitted a report listing the relevant incidents and evidence in detail. (Please refer to our report, para 20 to 37)”
Denying suppressing trade unions
The Hong Kong officials also rejected the accusations of suppressing and politically censoring the trade unions. Hoi Sha Cheung, the Assistant Commissioner of the Labour Department, stated that the number of registered unions has rose from 917 in 2019 to 1454 in 2020. Also, she said that among the 176 trade unions that were deregistered in 2021 and 2022, only 1 was deregistered by the government while the rest of them “were deregistered following voluntary dissolutions or cancellation initiated by the trade unions concerned.”
Nonetheless, the spokesperson of HKCHR says:
“According to the data of the Labour Department, the number of declared membership of all trade unions did fall for two consecutive years (2020-2021) with a decrease of 34,539 members, suggesting a significant setback in the right to freely join a trade union of one’s choice. The figure was included in our report to the Committee.”
“We also reject the claim of ‘voluntary dissolution’ because of the fact that many trade unions decided to disband under the pressure given by the government and pro-Beijing media outlets. Also, the government did harass the operation of trade unions by utilizing administrative measures and legislation, which violated the rights enshrined in the Basic Law and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Please refer to our report, para. 71 to 94)” It is regretful to see that the Labour Department claimed that the dissolution was voluntary despite the tremendous political pressure faced by the trade unions.”
We urge the Committee to express concerns over the deteriorating human rights situations in Hong Kong, and demand the Hong Kong government to cease violating human rights and take remedial actions immediately.