Hong Kong issues arrest warrants for 19 overseas activists
They are accused of organising or participating in the "Hong Kong Parliament", a group that authorities in the Asian financial hub say aimed to subvert state power, under the law Beijing imposed in 2020 following months of pro-democracy protests in 2019.
The activists are accused of having launched a referendum or run as candidates in the unofficial "Hong Kong Parliament" group, which authorities say aims at achieving self-determination and drafting a "Hong Kong constitution".
Police, who said the organisation sought to overthrow the governments of China and Hong Kong by unlawful means, said they are still investigating and further arrests may follow.
Among those named are businessman Elmer Yuen, commentator Victor Ho, and activists Johnny Fok and Tony Choi. Four of them are subject to previous arrest warrants, each carrying a bounty of HK$1 million (NZ$211,000).
Among the remaining 15, for each of whom police are offering a bounty of HK$200,000, are those said to have organised or run in the election and sworn in as its councillors.
None of the accused could be reached for comment.
The UK's Foreign and Home Secretaries condemned the move in a joint statement, calling the arrests "another example of transnational repression" and saying it damages Hong Kong's international reputation.
"(The UK) will not tolerate attempts by foreign governments to coerce, intimidate, harass or harm their critics overseas," it said in a statement on Friday.
In response, the Chinese embassy in the UK said the British government's remarks "constitute a gross interference" in China's internal affairs and the rule of law in Hong Kong.
"China urges the UK to abandon its colonial mentality, stop interfering in Hong Kong affairs...stop shielding criminals," it said.
The former British colony returned to Chinese rule in 1997 with the guarantee of a high degree of autonomy, including freedom of speech, under a "one country, two systems" formula.
Critics of the national security law say authorities are using it to stifle dissent.
Chinese and Hong Kong officials have repeatedly said the law was vital to restore stability after the city was rocked for months by sometimes violent anti-government and anti-China protests in 2019.
Police reiterated that national security offenses were serious crimes with extraterritorial reach and urged the wanted individuals to return to Hong Kong and surrender.
"If offenders voluntarily give up continuing to violate the crime, turn themselves in, truthfully confess their crimes, or provide key information that helps solve other cases, they may be eligible for reduced punishment," they said in a statement.
Police also warned that aiding, abetting, or funding others to participate in the "Hong Kong Parliament" could be a criminal offense.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
an hour ago
- NZ Herald
Christchurch Casino money laundering case: Internal Affairs settlement reached, casino chief apologises
Christchurch Casino's boss has apologised for "substantial" anti-money laundering failures after it was investigated. Listening to articles is free for open-access content—explore other articles or learn more about text-to-speech. Already a subscriber? Sign in here Access to Herald Premium articles require a Premium subscription. Subscribe now to listen. Christchurch Casino's boss has apologised for "substantial" anti-money laundering failures after it was investigated. Christchurch Casino says it takes responsibility for major anti-money laundering failures and apologises to the community. The casino will pay more than $5 million after it and the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) reached a settlement in civil proceedings. Casino chief executive Brett Anderson told the Herald he was sorry for 'substantial anti-money laundering failings'. 'Christchurch Casino was not directly involved in money laundering or the financing of terrorism, but we failed where we should have succeeded in meeting our responsibilities under the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act.' On behalf of the casino board and management, he apologised to the Christchurch community and casino stakeholders.
Scoop
5 hours ago
- Scoop
Dunne's Weekly: Oppositions Seldom Win, But Governments Often Lose
That Oppositions do not win elections, but governments lose them is a well-established political maxim. Elections are essentially a judgement on the performance of the government of the day. Seldom does the capability of the Opposition to govern come into the calculation, if the government has lost public favour. Elections are therefore more about getting rid of an unpopular government than the risk of installing an often-unprepared Opposition in power. Moreover, voters often have short memories. A recent poll showed many people believe it is time for another group of parties to govern in New Zealand, despite it being less than two years since that same group was unceremoniously turfed out of office and does not yet seem to fully appreciate the reasons why. Indeed, although the Opposition has not yet released any specific policy, its general attitude seems to be that it will just pick up where it left off last time and resume the same sort of policy approach and style of government voters rejected so clearly at the last election. That is why Labour was able to get away last week with criticising the government's handling of the ongoing cost-of-living crisis without offering any alternative of its own, because, frankly, as the Opposition, its views do not matter. Next year's election will be more a referendum on the government's performance than a critique of the Opposition's alternative. This is not unique to New Zealand. Last year's Labour landslide victory in the British general election was more a repudiation of fourteen years of Conservative rule, than an endorsement of Labour. Now, having rejected the Conservatives so overwhelmingly, and to date being less than impressed with Labour's offering, it is hardly surprising that British voters are flocking in droves to the untried Reform Party. The New Zealand equivalent of that phenomenon has been the increase in support for minor parties, New Zealand First and the Greens in particular. So much so that the next election, and which parties form the next government, could come down to how well the minor parties perform, rather than the major parties they could be expected to align with in government. Given that context, it is not altogether surprising that there is mounting speculation the current government could be the country's first one-term government in 50 years. But, so far, the evidence for that happening is not strong. The National/ACT/ New Zealand bloc has led in most opinion polls since the end of 2021. Today, the latest rolling average of polls shows the coalition government ahead of its rivals by just under 4%, and still able to form a majority government. At the same point in the electoral cycle three years ago, the then Labour Government was trailing the then-Opposition National/ACT/ New Zealand bloc by just under 5%. Nevertheless, National's position is precarious. Its vulnerability, which this column has highlighted many times previously, is its increasing dependence on its coalition partners to get across the electoral line. Until recently, the Prime Minister has shrugged this point aside, saying it is just one of the realities of MMP. However, in recent weeks there has been a perceptible change in the government's tempo, with a slew of major policy announcements from National in a variety of areas, from a new infrastructure plan, a new funding model for general practices, an end to building open-plan classrooms, and even the controversial changes to electoral enrolment provisions, National has shown a new determination in seeking to dominate the political agenda on its terms. No longer does it seem happy to let its coalition partners control the policy agenda as they appear to have done throughout the government's term. With the election just over a year away National looks to have moved centre-stage in terms of the government's performance. It knows that to win the next election the coalition government needs to first lock-in the support of those who voted for it last time, before trying to drag in additional other voters from across the political divide. So, National's current moves are a deliberate attempt to claw back supporters who may have deserted it for ACT or New Zealand First, because they have seen them as more boldly defined. Without locking-in that core government support into National's column, National's position will become shakier and its prospects more uncertain. Things are not quite as challenging for Labour, however. Because it is in its first term in Opposition and because one-term governments are a rarity – only two (both Labour) in the last century – while there may be increasing hope, there is not yet any real expectation that it can win in 2026. That immediately relieves some of the pressure of expectation of returning to office so quickly. Similarly, because governments lose elections rather than Oppositions win them, the level of scrutiny on Labour's promises will always be less than that on the government's promises. That will change a little as the election nears, but for Labour, right now, the longer it can keep getting away with criticising the government and not offering any constructive alternative, the better. None of this means a Labour-bloc victory at the next election is unlikely or impossible. With polls showing increasing disapproval of the country's current direction, it must be acknowledged there is a greater chance of this occurring. And yet again, it will be a case of the government losing, rather than the Opposition winning.
Newsroom
6 hours ago
- Newsroom
Let's not open the gate to US-style voter disenfranchisement
Opinion: There was a time when worrying about voting rights in New Zealand seemed like a quaint concern. Following a seminar during my undergraduate studies at Otago in the late 2000s, I can remember questioning an Electoral Commission official about increasing Republican hostility towards 'get out the vote' campaigns in the US. Wasn't there a risk, if potential non-voters in New Zealand similarly tended towards particular demographics, that some political parties would be more interested in promoting democracy than others? The answer I received, in short, was that New Zealand was not the United States. Here, I was politely informed, governments of the right were no less likely to support pro-voter measures than those of the left. Is that still the case? New Zealand is still not the United States, where Republicans have studiously fine-tuned the tools of voter suppression. In contrast, Christopher Luxon's coalition Government is only just starting on the project of tilting the playing field of democracy. Last week the Government proposed to remove the right of eligible voters to enrol in the 13-day period up to and including election day. At the 2023 election, the total number of special votes included 97,000 people who registered to vote for the first time during the voting period. Election day enrolments were only introduced from the 2020 election. But the Government is not simply rolling back that change. The proposed amendment would require voters' information to be updated by the end of the 13th day prior to the election. This is taking voter entitlements back more than 30 years. Analysis by the Electoral Commission suggests that those affected by this change are disproportionately likely to be Māori, Asian, Pacific people, as well as younger voters. A startling 48 percent of Māori voters aged 18 to 19 enrolled or changed their voting details during the voting period. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith defended the change by saying, 'The final vote count used to take two weeks, last election it took three … If we leave things as they are, it could well take even longer in future elections'. This is a hollow justification. In most instances, the outcome of the election is reasonably clear by the end of election night, rather than hinging on special votes. Instead, it is weeks of protracted coalition negotiations that have often delayed a final election outcome. If it is important enough that arrangements between parties are worked through in appropriate detail, why is it intolerable to take slightly longer to count the votes on which the legitimacy of those negotiations rests? There is reason enough for concern when the Government proposes making it harder for already disadvantaged groups to vote. But there is another group who might be particularly affected by these changes – renters. Rules that make it harder for people to change their enrolment details later in the voting period will have a greater impact on groups whose details are more likely to change. Advice to the Government noted 'about 20 percent of the population had lived in their house for one year or less, and 53 percent had lived in their house for less than five years'. During the last election, special votes included a further 134,000 people who were enrolled but were able to change their electorate during the voting period. The proposed rule changes would prevent this group from doing so, and it's hard to say how many of them would still cast their party vote. Those unable to own their own home already have to contend with a dysfunctional housing market and often tenuous living circumstances. Their concerns should be front and centre of our politics. But at some level, political parties ultimately focus on the votes they think will make a difference. Imposing additional barriers to voting for those with less stable accommodation is akin to turning down the volume knob for these voters' concerns. But the more fundamental concern here is the shift away from democracy as primarily a battle of competing ideas and visions towards a contest around the ability of particular groups to exercise their vote. The escalation of this process in the US should serve as a sobering warning for the path the Government has started us down. In recent years, Republican officials have frequently tried to impose strict voter ID laws, with the intent of disenfranchising voters less likely to have such identification. In 2012 one unusually frank Pennsylvanian State Senator said such rules would 'allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania'. Republicans have tried to manipulate the placement of voting booths away from areas convenient to Democratic-leaning voters, particularly African-Americans. More recently, state-level battles have arisen over efforts at redistricting (redrawing electoral maps to try to limit the sway of some voters at the expense of others), with the Republican legislative majority in Texas putting forward a highly contentious plan to redraw districts that might swing as many as five congressional seats to Republicans. These measures are not currently on the table in New Zealand. But what keeps them firmly in the category of a far-off hypothetical is a common commitment to the idea that democracy should be about changing voters' minds, not about making it harder for them to make their voices heard. The Government's disregard for the democratic rights of its citizens is a clear indication those norms are no longer shared across the political spectrum.
