It may be illegal to retain old Apple Daily newspapers after Article 23 is enacted

Hong Kong media reported on the 9th that the "Maintaining National Security Bill" Committee of the Hong Kong Legislative Council continued to review the "Acts with Inciting Intent, etc." section 23 of the draft on the afternoon of the 9th . Legislative Council member Guan Haoming asked if someone keeps Apple Daily as a souvenir at home, whether it will become "possession of seditious publications."

Hong Kong Security Secretary Tang Bingqiang responded, "If you still possess these items after the law is passed, and these items have the intention of inciting, it is illegal," emphasizing that it does not matter when the relevant publications were printed. However, this depends on whether the possessor has a "reasonable excuse"; if the relevant publications have been stored for a long time, the possessor does not know that he is in possession, and the purpose is not for incitement, this may constitute a reasonable excuse.

Legislative Council member Ip Lau Suk-yee asked, if there are balloons printed with inciting words, such as "Liberate Hong Kong Revolution of Our Times", and then the balloons are released, will it be considered a statement of inciting intent? If a seditious statue has no text, will it be considered as expressing seditious intent?

Deng Bingqiang said that releasing "Light Time" balloons is definitely a form of expression of seditious intentions; and making "statues with strong seditious messages" may be an act of seditious intentions.

Legislative Council member Chen Shaoxiong mentioned that university scientific research collects public opinions, and some of them may contain opinions with seditious intentions. Will it violate the regulations if one possesses seditious materials and publications? Deputy Secretary-General of the Security Bureau Liao Li Keqi said that scientific research collection does not have the intention of incitement to obtain information and publications, so it will not be a crime. This is a reasonable explanation.