Open-source intelligence (OSINT)
🔻 IMPORTANT 【重要】
關於基本法23條立法，港府已表明今明年擬定立法。目前看似膚淺地把‘沒有集會遊行’或 ‘區議會少了直選因素’ 當作由亂治港或由治至興的公關標誌來大肆宣傳。在此價值觀被扭曲了。其背後掩蓋的是不斷強化和鞏固的，不經由民意考驗的既得利益朋黨大聯盟的權力。
從2019年反修例事件及2020年一整年新冠肺炎雙重打擊（顯然，2020年是香港史上的谷底）後，到了2023年為止，港府掀開的一系列政治措施都尚未改善或解決本港嚴峻的民生問題。這對於將國安和民生分開開來的不正常思維的人們（愛自稱‘精英’的離地權貴）而言，感到不當的。然而，在政治，經濟和民生的主次關係是，政經究竟都是為了民生，因此，民生質數總是政治經濟活動和任何政策的唯一基準。
權貴（官僚和資本）和專家們（學界，顧問黨等）往往會說一般市民沒有權力和建制頭銜，所以建議不要關注社會制度，政策和事件，你們都管不著，由我們來專辦和代辦。然而，有個辯證矛盾。最受其影響和損害的正是所謂俎上肉的一般市民，因此，最受其害的，最沒空的，最沒有權利和頭銜的一般市民才是本來最該關注社會制度，政策和事件的。
就整體而言，基本法是約束中央政府涉港行為的憲制性文件，而非拘束身為香港唯一地主港府行為的文件。其實，一般憲法，法律也是約束政府行為的文件。譬如，香港勞動者階級最該熟悉的僱傭條例在字面上規管勞資雙方的種種行為，但是如此約束的則同時是港府對勞資雙方行為的行為。規管A和B的是港府，所以寫A和B如何如何是規管的主體港府如何反應的意思。後者才是法律條文的本質和基底。
甚至，一般日常語言系統和法律語言系統都不同。如所謂法律用語，‘連續性雇用’並不等於一般用語的‘繼續僱用’。後者不一定合乎418（連續4個禮拜每週18個小時以上勞動）的可適用僱傭條例福祉的固有規定。最終，這類落差和差別足以影響一般市民解決問題的水平。這解釋首先是約束港府的對此定義。
從上面的命題來看，港府官僚面對新國策（看看鄭若驊當年對即將適用港區國安法時的反應）時，提及基本法云云的意思是在抵制中央政府。怕的首先是自己管轄權的問題，是因為對任何官僚而言，管轄權是最緊要的政治。其實，光是從這點也可看出港府及其官僚的本色和立場。換言之，港府及立法會的公關小丑如何提及基本法是個鮮明旗幟。
With regard to the enactment of legislation on Article 23 of the Basic Law, the Hong Kong Government has made it clear that legislation will be enacted next year. At present, it seems to be superficially publicizing 'no assembly and demonstration' or 'fewer direct elections in the District Councils' as a public relations symbol of ruling Hong Kong from chaos or from rule to prosperity. Here, values are distorted. Behind it is the ever strengthening and consolidation of the power of the crony coalition with vested interests, which is not tested by public opinion.
After the double blow of the anti-amendment incident in 2019 and the new coronary pneumonia in 2020 (obviously, 2020 is the bottom of Hong Kong's history), the series of political measures initiated by the Hong Kong government up to 2023 have not yet improved or solved the serious livelihood problems in Hong Kong. This is inappropriate for people with abnormal mindsets who separate national security from people's livelihoods (cronies who love to call themselves 'elites'). However, the primary relationship between politics, the economy and people's livelihoods is that politics and economics are all about people's livelihoods, and therefore, the quality of people's livelihoods is always the only benchmark for political and economic activities and any policies.
The rich and powerful (bureaucrats and capitalists) and experts (academics, consultants, etc.) often say that the general public does not have the power and the title of the establishment, so they suggest not paying attention to the social system, policies and events that you are not in charge of, and that we should specialize in them and take over for them. However, there is a dialectical contradiction. It is the general public, the so-called "meat on the chopping block", who are most affected and jeopardized by their policies. Therefore, it is the general public, who are the most victimized, who have the least room for manoeuvre, who have the least rights and titles, who should be the most concerned about the social system, policies and events.
As a whole, the Basic Law is a constitutional document that binds the Central Government's acts in relation to Hong Kong, not the acts of the Hong Kong Government, which is the sole landlord of Hong Kong. As a matter of fact, constitutions and laws in general are also documents that constrain the behaviour of the government. For example, the Employment Ordinance, with which the working class in Hong Kong should be most familiar, literally regulates the conduct of both employers and employees, but what it restricts is the conduct of the Hong Kong Government towards the conduct of both employers and employees at the same time. It is the Hong Kong Government that regulates A and B. Therefore, what is written in A and B is the meaning of how the Hong Kong Government, the subject of regulation, reacts. The latter is the essence and foundation of legal provisions.
Even the general system of everyday language is different from the system of legal language. For example, in the so-called legal language, 'continuous employment' is not the same as 'continued employment' in ordinary language. The latter does not necessarily satisfy the inherent requirements of the 418 (four consecutive weeks of 18 or more hours of labour per week) of the applicable employment ordinances of well-being. At the end of the day, such discrepancies and differences are sufficient to affect the general public's level of problem solving. This explanation binds the Hong Kong Government's definition in the first place.
In the context of the above proposition, the reference to the Basic Law by Hong Kong government bureaucrats in the face of the new national policy (look at the reaction of Teresa Cheng Yeuk-wah to the impending application of the Hong Kong National Security Law) means that they are resisting the central government. The first thing they are afraid of is the question of their own jurisdiction, because to any bureaucrat, jurisdiction is the most important political issue. In fact, just from this point alone, we can see the true nature and stance of the Hong Kong Government and its bureaucrats. In other words, how the Hong Kong Government and the public relations clowns in the Legislative Council refer to the Basic Law is a clear flag.
The Enactment of Legislation on Article 23
香港特別行政區應自行立法禁止任何叛國、分裂國家、煽動叛亂、顛覆中央人民政府及竊取國家機密的行為，禁止外國的政治性組織或團體在香港特別行政區進行政治活動，禁止香港特別行政區的政治性組織或團體與外國的政治性組織或團體建立聯繫。
Article 23
The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People's Government, or theft of state secrets, to prohibit foreign political organizations or bodies from conducting political activities in the Region, and to prohibit political organizations or bodies of the Region from establishing ties with foreign political organizations or bodies.
這個議題的基本結構是，至今仍然有效的港英時代的相應罪行條款，2003年撤回的23條立法草案以及港區國安法的覆蓋範圍。其中，最不緊要的是國際比較，反而它只會往往掩蓋本港的固有邏輯。不懂本港的固有邏輯，搞國際比較也是膚淺的，也有危險陷入照搬外國一套的形式主義。這是主次問題。
The basic structure of the subject is the corresponding offence clauses of the British Hong Kong era which are still in force, the article 23 draft legislation withdrawn in 2003, and the coverage of the national security law in Hong Kong. The least important of these is international comparison, which tends to obscure the inherent logic of Hong Kong. Without understanding the logic inherent in Hong Kong, international comparisons are superficial and run the risk of falling into the formalism of copying foreign practices. This is a matter of priority.
第23條草案內的的「顛覆」行為是針對「顛覆中央人民政府」，但在「港版國安法」內的「顛覆」行為是則針對「顛覆國家政權」，意味顛覆罪除了涵蓋顛覆國務院外，將同時針對人大及中央轄下的其他部門，地方機關，亦包括顛覆香港特別行政區政府，範圍較第23條更廣。
至於第23條草案餘下5條條文，包括叛國、煽動叛亂、外國政治團體在香港進行政治活動、竊取國家機密，以及本地政治團體與外國政治組織聯繫，均沒有被納入「港版國安法」草案內。
While the act of "subversion" in article 23 targets "subversion against the Central People's Government", the act of "subversion" in the "Hong Kong version of the National Security Law" targets "subversion of state power", which implies that the offence of subversion not only covers subversion of the State Council, but also targets subversion of the National People's Congress (NPC), other departments of the Central People's Government, and other local authorities, and includes subversion of the Government of the HKSAR, which is a much wider scope than that of article 23.
As for the remaining 5 clauses of article 23, including treason, sedition, political activities of foreign political organizations in Hong Kong, theft of state secrets, and liaison between local political organizations and foreign political organizations, they are not included in the "Hong Kong version of the National Security Law".
READ MORE: 港版國安法與23條分別 一表睇晒
這已經概括了在2003年23條立法草案和港區國安法之間的差別。俗稱‘無牙老虎’版的該舊草案明顯有致命漏洞。不過，最被忽略的則是修訂至今仍然有效的港英時代的相應罪行條款是被放在該舊草案內一併處理的。因此，當2003年23條立法草案被推翻的時候，後來20年的默不做聲，拖延證實了立法會一方有藉口把那次失敗視為連單獨修訂至今仍然有效的港英時代的相應罪行條款也是不可以的。在政治上，這才是凸顯本港既得利益集團心聲的一點，是因為那些港英時代的國安條款足以對付社會事件的，刻意把它棄之不顧，拖延不修已不適用的主詞是個政治動作。這在2019年的顏色革命時充分被證實和質疑了。
所謂七宗罪（叛國，分裂國家，煽動叛亂， 顛覆中央人民政府，竊取國家機密，禁止外國的政治性組織或團體在香港特別行政區進行政治活動，禁止香港特別行政區的政治性組織或團體與外國的政治性組織或團體建立聯繫）的三大分類是，內亂，外謀，以及對外勾結。
在此，市民需要知道的是，除了港區國安法覆蓋和與23條重疊的範圍外，至今仍然有效的港英時代的相應罪行條款與港區國安法不覆蓋範圍的重疊。實際上，這就等於23條立法。即：
港區國安法（顛覆國家政權，分裂國家）+至今仍然有效的港英時代的相應罪行條款覆蓋的範圍（叛國，煽動叛亂，竊取國家機密， 禁止外國的政治性組織或團體在香港特別行政區進行政治活動，禁止香港特別行政區的政治性組織或團體與外國的政治性組織或團體建立聯繫）=23條立法 （2023年現在）
所以，三個法律範疇是三位一體而構成完整的23條立法的方向的。這就是揚棄。即在2003年的舊草案時尚未有過的新條件上可成立的豐富性。
誠然，23條會作為單獨完整的法律，並且與港區國安法以及修訂後的至今仍然有效的港英時代的相應罪行條款可建立互補關係。
This sums up the difference between the 2003 Article 23 Bill and the Hong Kong National Security Law. The 'toothless tiger' version of the old Bill is obviously fatally flawed. However, the most overlooked is the fact that amendments to the Hong Kong-British-era offence clauses, which are still in force today, were dealt with in the old Bill. Therefore, when the article 23 bill was overturned in 2003, the subsequent 20 years of silence and procrastination confirmed that one side of the Legislative Council had an excuse to regard that failure as an excuse for not even amending the corresponding offence clauses of the British-Hong Kong era, which are still in force today. Politically, this is the point that highlights the voice of the vested interests in Hong Kong. It is because those British Hong Kong era national security provisions are sufficient to deal with social incidents, and it is a political move to deliberately discard them and delay amending a subject that is no longer applicable. This has been fully confirmed and questioned during the colour revolution in 2019.
The three major categories of the so-called Seven Deadly Sins (treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People's Government, theft of state secrets, forbidding foreign organizations or bodies of a political nature to conduct political activities in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, forbidding organizations or bodies of a political nature in the HKSAR to establish ties with organizations or bodies of a political nature in a foreign country) are, internal strife, external conspiracy, and collusion with foreign countries.
Here, members of the public need to know that, apart from the scope covered by the Hong Kong National Security Law and its overlap with Article 23, the corresponding offence provisions of the British Hong Kong era, which are still in force today, do not overlap with the scope covered by the Hong Kong National Security Law. In practice, this is tantamount to Article 23 legislation. That is to say:
Hong Kong's national security laws (subversion of state power, secession) + the scope covered by the corresponding offence provisions of the British Hong Kong era that are still in force today (treason, sedition, theft of state secrets, prohibiting foreign political organizations or bodies from conducting political activities in the Hong Kong SAR, and prohibiting the establishment of ties between Hong Kong SAR's political organizations or bodies and foreign political organizations or bodies) = Legislation of Article 23 ( 2023 now)
So, the three areas of law are three in one and form the complete direction of the legislation of Article 23. This is what is meant by synthesis. That is to say, the richness that can be established in the new conditions that did not exist in the old draft in 2003.
Indeed, Article 23 will stand alone as a complete piece of legislation and will be complementary to the Hong Kong national security laws and the corresponding British Hong Kong-era offence provisions that are still in force today after the amendments.
至今仍然有效的港英時代的相應罪行條款 Corresponding offence clauses of the British Hong Kong era which are still in force today：
叛國：
刑事罪行條例 第一部規定叛逆，叛逆性質的行為，襲擊女皇（需修訂詞彙：君主，女皇，聯合王國，英國等舊政體）
叛逆
(1)任何人有下述行為，即屬叛逆 ——
(a)殺死或傷害女皇陛下，或導致女皇陛下身體受傷害，或禁錮女皇陛下，或限制女皇陛下的活動；
(b)意圖作出(a)段所述的作為，並以公開的作為表明該意圖；
(c)向女皇陛下發動戰爭 ——
(i)意圖廢除女皇陛下作為聯合王國或女皇陛下其他領土的君主稱號、榮譽及皇室名稱；或
(ii)旨在以武力或強制手段強迫女皇陛下改變其措施或意見，或旨在向國會或任何英國屬土的立法機關施加武力或強制力，或向其作出恐嚇或威嚇；
(d)鼓動外國人以武力入侵聯合王國或任何英國屬土；
(e)以任何方式協助與女皇陛下交戰的公敵；或
(f)與他人串謀作出(a)或(c)段所述的事情。
(2)任何人叛逆，即屬犯罪，一經循公訴程序定罪，可處終身監禁。 (由1993年第24號第2條修訂)
[比照 1351 c. 2 U.K.；比照 1795 c. 7 s. 1 U.K.； 比照 1817 c. 6 s. 1 U.K.]
Part I of the Crimes Ordinance provides for treason, acts of a treasonable nature, assaults on the Queen (need to amend terms: monarch, Queen, United Kingdom, etc. of the old regimes).
Treason (Crimes Ordinance )
(1)A person commits treason if he—
(a)kills, wounds or causes bodily harm to Her Majesty, or imprisons or restrains Her;
(b)forms an intention to do any such act as is mentioned in paragraph (a) and manifests such intention by an overt act;
(c)levies war against Her Majesty—
(i)with the intent to depose Her Majesty from the style, honour and royal name of the Crown of the United Kingdom or of any other of Her Majesty’s dominions; or
(ii)in order by force or constraint to compel Her Majesty to change Her measures or counsels, or in order to put any force or constraint upon, or to intimidate or overawe, Parliament or the legislature of any British territory;
(d)instigates any foreigner with force to invade the United Kingdom or any British territory;
(e)assists by any means whatever any public enemy at war with Her Majesty; or
(f)conspires with any other person to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a) or (c).
(2)Any person who commits treason shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life. (Amended 24 of 1993 s. 2)
[cf. 1351 c. 2 U.K.; 1795 c. 7 s. 1 U.K.; 1817 c. 6 s. 1 U.K.]
煽動叛亂：
上述刑事罪行條例（前煽動條例）涵蓋了煽動叛亂的具國際規模的罪行。
6.煽惑叛變
任何人明知而企圖 ——
(a)勸誘中國人民解放軍人員放棄職責及放棄向中華人民共和國效忠；或 (由2012年第2號第3條代替)
(b)煽惑上述任何人 ——
(i)作出叛變的作為或作出叛逆或叛變性質的作為；或
(ii)召開或試圖召開叛變性質的集會，
即屬犯罪，一經循公訴程序定罪，可處終身監禁。
[比照 1797 c. 70 s. 1 U.K.]
The Crimes Ordinance (formerly the Sedition Ordinance) covers sedition as a crime of international proportions.
Incitement to mutiny
Any person who knowingly attempts—
(a)
to seduce any member of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army from his duty and allegiance to the People’s Republic of China; or
(Replaced 2 of 2012 s. 3)
(b)
to incite any such person—
(i)
to commit an act of mutiny or any traitorous or mutinous act; or
(ii)
to make or endeavour to make a mutinous assembly,
shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction upon indictment to imprisonment for life.
[cf. 1797 c. 70 s. 1 U.K.]
竊取國家機密：
官方機密條例保護針對港府機密的間諜活動和非法披露行為，但不涵蓋中央政府的機密。這致命漏洞至今未改。此外，該條文也需要修辭。所謂間諜和諜報被過於電影化，其實，任何末端的通訊機構設下的各地區有大人流的地方所暗藏的截取通訊站（intercepting points）來監控市民也是日常諜報活動。科技公司，社交媒體公司隨時都截取其用戶的通訊，個人資料及聯絡網也是基本的間諜活動。手機也是隨時都監控和截取通訊的諜報工具。那官僚個人用戶的資料也是隨時都可被截取的。
Theft of state secrets:
The Official Secrets Ordinance (OSO) protects espionage and unlawful disclosure of Hong Kong government secrets, but does not cover central government secrets. This fatal loophole remains unchanged. It also needs to be amended. The so-called espionage and spying is overly cinematic. In fact, the interception points set up by any end of the communication agencies to monitor the public in areas where there is a large flow of people are also daily espionage activities. Technology companies, social media companies intercept their users' communications, personal data and contact networks at any time and it is also a basic espionage activity. Cell phones are also spying tools that monitor and intercept communications at all times. Bureaucrats' personal user information can be intercepted at any time.
諜報活動
(1)任何人如為有損聯合王國或香港的安全或利益的目的而作出以下作為，即屬犯罪 ——
(a)接近、察看、越過或進入禁地，或處身毗鄰禁地之處；
(b)製作旨在對，可能對或擬對敵人有直接或間接用處的圖片、圖則、模型或紀錄；或
(c)取得、收集、記錄或發表相當可能對、可能對或擬對敵人有直接或間接用處的任何機密的官方代碼或通行碼、任何圖片、圖則、模型或紀錄或其他文件或資料，或將之傳達予任何其他人。
(2)在就本條所訂罪行而對某人提起的法律程序中，無須證明他犯有顯示有損聯合王國或香港的安全或利益的任何特定作為，而即使沒有證明他犯有該等作為，但如從案件的情況、他的行徑或經證明的他為人所知的品格看來，他的目的看似是有損聯合王國或香港的安全或利益的作為的目的，則他仍可被定罪。
(3)在就本條所訂罪行而對某人提起的法律程序中，他曾經與或曾經企圖與在香港或其他地方的外國或台灣特工通訊此一事實，即為他曾為有損聯合王國或香港的安全或利益的目的而取得(或曾企圖為該目的而取得)旨在對、可能對或擬封敵人有直接或間接用處的資料的證據。
(4)在不損害第(3)款的一般性的原則下，就該款而言 ——
(a)任何人曾在香港或其他地方 ——
(i)造訪外國或台灣特工的地址或與外國或台灣特工交往或與外國或台灣特工有聯繫；
(ii)被發現管有外國或台灣特工的姓名或地址或關於外國或台灣特工的任何其他資料；或
(iii)將外國或台灣特工的姓名或地址或關於外國或台灣特工的任何其他資料給予任何其他人，或從任何其他人處取得該等姓名、地址或資料，
則在沒有相反證據的情況下，該人須當作曾與外國或台灣特工通訊；及
(b)任何被合理地懷疑是用於接收擬給予外國或台灣特工的通訊的在香港或其他地方的地址，或外國或台灣特工所居住或經營任何業務的地址，或外國或台灣特工為發出或接收通訊而使用的地址，須當作為外國或台灣特工的地址，而致予該等地址的通訊則須當作為與外國或台灣特工的通訊。
(5)
在本條中，外國或台灣特工 (foreign or Taiwan agent)包括 ——
(a)受或曾經受或被合理地懷疑是受或曾經受外國或台灣直接或間接僱用，以在香港或其他地方作出有損聯合王國或香港的安全或利益的作為的人；或
(b)已經或已企圖或被合理地懷疑已經或已企圖在香港或其他地方為外國或台灣的利益作出該等作為的人。
(由1998年第23號第2條修訂)
[比照 1911 c. 28 s. 1 U.K.；1920 c. 75 s. 2 U.K.]
Spying
(1)A person commits an offence if he, for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom or Hong Kong—
(a)approaches, inspects, passes over or is in the neighbourhood of, or enters, a prohibited place;
(b)makes a sketch, plan, model or note that is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be directly or indirectly useful to an enemy; or
(c)obtains, collects, records or publishes, or communicates to any other person, any secret official code word or password, or any sketch, plan, model or note, or other document or information, that is likely to be or might be or is intended to be directly or indirectly useful to an enemy.
(2)In any proceedings against a person for an offence under this section, it shall not be necessary to show that he was guilty of any particular act tending to show a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom or Hong Kong and, notwithstanding that no such act is proved against him, he may be convicted if, from the circumstances of the case, or his conduct, or his known character as proved, it appears that his purpose was a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom or Hong Kong.
(3)In any proceedings against a person for an offence under this section, the fact that he has been in communication with, or attempted to communicate with, a foreign or Taiwan agent in Hong Kong or elsewhere, shall be evidence that he has, for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom or Hong Kong, obtained or attempted to obtain information that is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be directly or indirectly useful to an enemy.
(4)For the purpose of subsection (3) but without prejudice to the generality of that subsection—
(a)a person shall, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, be deemed to have been in communication with a foreign or Taiwan agent if he has, in Hong Kong or elsewhere—
(i)visited the address of a foreign or Taiwan agent or consorted or associated with a foreign or Taiwan agent;
(ii)been found in possession of the name or address of, or any other information regarding, a foreign or Taiwan agent; or
(iii)supplied to any other person, or obtained from any other person, the name or address of, or any other information regarding, a foreign or Taiwan agent; and
(b)any address, in Hong Kong or elsewhere, reasonably suspected of being an address used for the receipt of communications intended for a foreign or Taiwan agent, or any address at which a foreign or Taiwan agent resides, or to which he resorts for the purpose of giving or receiving communications, or at which he carries on any business, shall be deemed to be the address of a foreign or Taiwan agent, and communications addressed to such an address to be communications with a foreign or Taiwan agent.
(5)
In this section, foreign or Taiwan agent (外國或台灣特工) includes a person who— (Amended E.R. 6 of 2020)
(a)is or has been or is reasonably suspected of being or having been employed by a foreign state or Taiwan either directly or indirectly for the purpose of committing an act, in Hong Kong or elsewhere, prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom or Hong Kong; or
(b)has or is reasonably suspected of having, in Hong Kong or elsewhere, committed or attempted to commit such an act in the interests of a foreign state or Taiwan.
(Amended 23 of 1998 s. 2)
[cf. 1911 c. 28 s. 1 U.K.; 1920 c. 75 s. 2 U.K.]
禁止外國的政治性組織或團體在香港特別行政區進行政治活動 Foreign organizations or bodies of a political nature are prohibited from conducting political activities in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region：
社團條例仍秉持註冊制度，社團註冊官可拒絕註冊。甚至，社團條例一直禁止外國性組織的政治活動及香港社團和外國社團之間的政治聯繫（勾結）。
社團條例第5A（3）：
社團事務主任在諮詢保安局局長後，可拒絕任何社團或分支機構註冊或拒絕予其豁免註冊 ——
(a)如他合理地相信拒絕註冊該社團或該分支機構或拒絕予其豁免註冊，是維護國家安全或公共安全、公共秩序或保護他人的權利和自由所需要者；或
(b)如該社團或該分支機構是政治性團體，並與外國政治性組織或台灣政治性組織有聯繫。
The Societies Ordinance still upholds the registration system and the Registrar of Societies may refuse registration. Even the Societies Ordinance has all along prohibited political activities of foreign organizations and political association (collusion) between Hong Kong societies and foreign societies.
Societies Ordinance 5A(3)
The Societies Officer may, after consultation with the Secretary for Security, refuse to register or to exempt from registration a society or a branch—
(a)if he reasonably believes that the refusal is necessary in the interests of national security or public safety, public order or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others; or (Amended 10 of 2008 s. 4)
(b)if the society or the branch is a political body that has a connection with a foreign political organization or a political organization of Taiwan.
禁止香港特別行政區的政治性組織或團體與外國的政治性組織或團體建立聯繫 Prohibiting political organizations or bodies of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region from establishing ties with foreign political organizations or bodies：
如上所述，社團條例涵蓋這個範疇的罪行。
Prohibiting organizations or bodies of a political character in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region from establishing ties with organizations or bodies of a political character in foreign countries:
As mentioned above, the Societies Ordinance covers offences in this area.
最後要知道所謂國安在建制中到底是什麼意思？ 中港的國家安全的法律概念（過於狹窄）如下：
社團條例第2條第4款：
國家安全 (national security)則指保衞中華人民共和國的領土完整及獨立自主。 (由1997年第118號第3條代替。由2008年第10號第3條修訂)
(由1992年第75號第3條修訂)
Finally, we need to know what so-called national security means in the establishment. The legal concept of national security in Hong Kong and China (which is too narrow) is as follows:
Section 2(4) of the Societies Ordinance:
national security (國家安全) means the safeguarding of the territorial integrity and the independence of the People’s Republic of China. (Replaced 118 of 1997 s. 3. Amended 10 of 2008 s. 3)
(Amended 75 of 1992 s. 3)
總之，除了獨立修訂刑事罪行條例，官方機密條例，以及社團條例中的過時主詞來活化個別國安條款之外，23條的單行法可以方便執法。甚至，港區國安法，現有港英時期國安條款（修辭後）足以構成23條立法的豐富內容，也可發揮最大的，曾未有過的互補關係。不過，不能忘記的是，除了港區國安法以外，那些港英時代的國安條款都有效的，但並沒有阻止社會事件。尤其是有關社團條例的部分，因此，最重要的不是字面，而是仍然看不到如何有效監控，發現，揭發，取締，拘捕，作證，處罰的革新的具體執法機制和方法。這才是最主要的國安系統的物質主體。沒有後者，單是條文則是如同虛設的。最大可能是，基於港區國安法的既有執法機制和方法上，實現23條的立法而已。
In short, apart from revitalizing individual national security provisions by making separate amendments to the Crimes Ordinance, the Official Secrets Ordinance, and the obsolete subject matter of the Societies Ordinance, the single-type legislation of Article 23 will facilitate law enforcement. Even the national security laws of Hong Kong, with the existing British-Hong Kong era national security provisions (as amended), could constitute a rich body of Article 23 legislation, and could maximize the complementary relationship that has never existed before. However, it must not be forgotten that, apart from the Hong Kong National Security Law, the national security provisions of the British Hong Kong era are all effective, but they have not prevented social incidents. In particular, the part in the Societies Ordinance, therefore, the most important thing is not the wording, but the fact that we still cannot see how to effectively monitor, detect, expose, proscribe, arrest, testify and penalize offenses, the innovative and concrete enforcement mechanism and methods. This is the most important material subject of the national security system. Without the latter, the provisions alone would be as good as nothing. It is most likely that the legislation of Article 23 will be realized on the basis of the existing enforcement mechanism and methods of the Hong Kong National Security Law.
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favour of fair use.