Fri, Mar 27, 2026 page8

• Caution for visitors to Hong Kong

  • By John Cheng
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force.

  This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from Hong Kong’s traditional lawmaking process toward executive rule.

  For Taiwan, this is not merely a legal adjustment in a neighboring city. It is a new digital border — one that every traveler must now cross.

  The most consequential change lies in authorities’ expanded reach into the digital lives of people. This year’s amendments codify a set of powers that are explicit and far-reaching.

  Police might now compel people to provide passwords or other “decryption methods” for electronic devices. Refusal is no longer a matter of choice, but a criminal offense, punishable by up to one year in prison and a fine of HK$100,000 (US$12,780).

  More strikingly, the law removes the traditional common law protection against self-incrimination: A person cannot refuse to unlock a device on the grounds that its contents might be used against them.

  The penalty is triggered by refusal itself, not by the discovery of any suspicious or criminal content.

  The amendments also extend enforcement capacity beyond the police. Customs officers are empowered to seize material — including digital content — on the basis of “reasonable suspicion” related to national security. In a legal environment where the boundaries of such suspicion are increasingly fluid, the scope of these powers is difficult to define in practical terms.

  The government points to judicial authorization as a safeguard. In theory, access to these powers requires a warrant, and the courts serve as a gatekeeper. However, in practice, the breadth of what might constitute a national security concern means that this gate is often more permissive than it appears.

  At the border or in the street, the experience is less about legal theory and more about immediate consequences. A traveler stopped at Hong Kong International Airport does not engage in a legal argument over thresholds and safeguards. Instead, the situation is compressed into a stark reality: cooperate or face escalation.

  Unlocking a device might lead to swift clearance. Refusal might result in detention, further investigation and potential criminal liability.

  While these powers apply to all travelers, their implications are uniquely acute for Taiwanese, given the evolving political definitions applied by Beijing.

  The security law asserts jurisdiction that extends beyond Hong Kong’s borders. Actions undertaken in Taiwan — donations, affiliations or public statements — might fall within the scope of scrutiny once a person enters Hong Kong. What is routine civic expression in Taiwan might, under a different legal framework, be recast as evidence of a national security concern. Once a device is opened, there is no telling what could be used against you.

  This does not imply blanket enforcement. The more likely reality is selective application — where the power lies not in arresting every traveler, but in retaining the ability to act when deemed necessary. In such a system, unpredictability becomes part of the mechanism.

  Hong Kong’s legal system once operated on the assumption that what was not prohibited was permitted. These amendments reflect a different principle: What the state defines as a threat becomes actionable, and the tools to identify that threat now extend deeply into the digital sphere.

  Travel decisions should be made with an accurate understanding of the destination’s legal environment. Digital privacy in Hong Kong is no longer a stable right; it is contingent, and in certain contexts, conditional.

  For Taiwanese travelers, the question is no longer confined to present actions. It extends backward — to past statements, associations and records that might now be accessible under a different set of rules.

  The question for every Taiwanese traveler is no longer just “What have I done in Hong Kong?”

  It is “What have I said or done in Taiwan that China [Hong Kong] has the power to see?”

  John Cheng is a retired businessman from Hong Kong now living in Taiwan.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    HSR malfunction causes delays, reduced service

  • 2

    Japan ‘mystery illness’ not new: CDC

  • 3

    Taiwan assessing recruiting from Eswatini: ministry

  • 4

    Taiwan, China coast guards argue in South China Sea

  • 5

    Nvidia’s Jensen Huang arrives in Taiwan