Rethinking the Viability of My Practice

Foreword

When I first considered applying to law school, one of my primary reasons was to be educated on constitutional rights and comparative law in anticipation of future negotiations between Hong Kong and Mainland China on its Special Administrative Region status. As an individual who was born shortly after the handover, I had grown up with the hope that Hong Kong would be able to implement elections by universal suffrage in accordance with a 2007 decision made by the National People’s Congress. However, the 2014 Umbrella Revolution soon illuminated the tensions between the general populace’s interpretation of universal suffrage and the Chinese Communist Party’s pre-screening requirement. In the aftermath of the violence and mass arrests from the protest, Beijing signaled for Hong Kong’s reintegration. The fervent promotion of the Greater Bay Area signaled an accelerated convergence. In that context, I had hoped to acquire legal training to act simultaneously as a facilitator of increased business movement in the region and an advocate for Hong Kong’s unique constitutional features, in particular our ability to vote for representatives of our legislative government and the rights to freedom of speech, expression, the press, peaceful assembly, and association.

However, following the 2019 protests and subsequent passing of the National Security Law (NSL) in 2020, my envisioned role is dead. Given the national security threat accusations lodged against individuals and organizations critical of the CCP and Hong Kong governments, the completion of my aspirations would likely result in my arrest by Hong Kong authorities or the loss of my permanent residency status either through forced deportation or self-imposed exile. My intended practice has to be completely redesigned or abandoned.

Redesigning My Practice

Renewed Goals

Prior to the passage of the 2020 National Security Law and Hong Kong's implementation of the "patriots only" election in 2021, I had aimed to leverage a future role as a trained lawyer and potential business leader to gain admission to the groups that would be debating Hong Kong's political and constitutional structure at the expiration of Hong Kong's 50-year "One Country, Two Systems" policy. There was historical precedent for such a path. In 1985, the National People's Congress of China formed the HKSAR Basic Law Consultative Committee (BLCC) to canvass views and provide input on drafts of the Hong Kong Basic Law in advance of Hong Kong's handover from Great Britain to China in 1997. The BLCC was comprised of representatives of the political, legal, business, education, cultural, and diplomatic sectors. Just as the BLCC considered and debated submissions for electoral issues and questions about residents' rights and duties, I aspired to be a part of similar conversations. Nevertheless, the government's independent passage of the NSL (with no outside consultation beyond the CCP) and the exclusivity of "patriots" in the legislature foreshadow unilateral changes made by the CCP and enforced by the Hong Kong government. As such, the aim of my practice is moot.

In rethinking what goals I would like to accomplish with my chosen practice, I have decided to continue doing work relating to the evolving (read: dwindling) rights of Hong Kong citizens amidst the already enacted and incoming political changes. Instead of seeking change (as this seems like an impossibility), perhaps an alternative avenue would be to inform and advise citizens on their rights. As of now, the definition of "national security" and the scope of the charges within the NSL still lack clarity and predictability. The ambiguity of the NSL's language may be subjected to evolving interpretations as more cases are decided, and it is important for citizens to understand their potential exposure to liability in a changing landscape. The new goal of my practice would be the education of Hong Kong citizens of their rights and possible civil protections as Hong Kong is reintegrated into Mainland China.

What My Practice Could Look Like

A practice that could achieve the goal set out above would likely resemble a legal clinic. Legal practitioners and scholars of Hong Kong Basic Law, Chinese politics, and jurisprudence would be useful staffers of the clinic. The clinic would also benefit from work from either students or academic scholars who would track judicial decisions, legislative debates and new laws in order to allow the clinic to predict trends in the adjudication of National Security Law cases and potential changes to the law.

Another aspect that education could take on is imparting the history of . Civil

The Role of Law School

Risks

Charge of Collusion with Foreign Forces

To avoid being charged with collusion with foreign governments, I would likely have to institute the following rules: (1) No association with individuals who have been or accused of violations or charged under the NSL, including those who have relocated abroad; (2) No receipt of funding from individuals or organizations with ties to foreign governments (3) No association with so-called Western organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, whom the CCP has accused of making "irresponsible remarks... according to rumors and hearsay"

However, it may be difficult to

Charge of National Security Threat

Reassure the Hong Kong and Mainland Chinese government that the organization is not one which is critical of any legislation or judicial decisions that pass, but one that would like to educate the general public of their rights and provide guidance for adherence to the law.

Charge of Conspiracy (Absence of Freedom of Association)

No Protection from Judicially Independent Courts

Conclusion