Wong Sio Chak
Secretary for Security, Wong Sio Chak, stated yesterday that he would not make assumptions and could not guarantee that the June 4 vigil’s application would be approved by his team next year.
This year’s vigil was banned by the Public Security Police Force, an entity under Wong, on the grounds of Covid-19 prevention. On the sidelines of a legislative committee meeting yesterday, Wong was asked to promise the vigil would return next year.
The security chief refused to make the promise, saying “we can’t make assumptions about what will happen next year.” He kept stressing that the ban was in force due to Covid-19.
Wong said that even if there was no pandemic next year, there may be other events with public health and public order implications.
“I can’t guarantee that the vigil will be approved next year,” Wong stated. “There may be other conditions. Of course, I won’t hope there will be another pandemic next year.”
He added that the vigil was not banned in the 30 years before this. Previously, the vigil was declared a city civic entity, such as the City Council before the Handover, and the Civic and Municipal Affairs Bureau after that. The police, meanwhile, acted as an advisory body only.
On the other hand, the security chief confirmed that his team had pressed charges against the two daughters of lawmaker Au Kam San. They were accused of allegedly illegally assembling near the Senado Square, where the banned vigil would have taken place.
According to Au, his two daughters were only sitting on a stone bench in front of St Dominic’s Church with an electric candle and an image of the famous June 4 “tank man” beside them.
In the meantime, two “festive parades” were staged at two different locations on June 5 and 6 in support of Beijing’s national security legislation on Hong Kong. The police admitted that the two events were not declared in advance.
Wong said that his team are still investigating the legality of the two events. He believes that the results will be released soon, but they were not publicized as of press time.
Meanwhile, democrat lawmaker Sulu Sou is not convinced by Wong’s comment. He reiterated that civil assemblies and protests “do not require an application.” He emphasized his comment by saying that “the only grounds on which the authority can refuse a civil protest or assembly is that the aim of the event is violating the law.”
He further stressed that this clarification is of phenomenal importance because “if residents develop [a] misunderstanding [on the matter], they would unconsciously trivialize themselves.”
“It is hard to tell whether [Wong] didn’t know about it or it was just a mistake,” the lawmaker added.
No Comments