Author:

What are electoral bonds, the secret donations powering Modi’s BJP?

A mysterious source of electoral funding, which has generated hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues for the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), is under scrutiny in India after the country’s top court found in November that they “put a premium on opacity” and can be “misused for money laundering”. On Thursday, the Supreme Court will announce its verdict on an ongoing petition calling for electoral bonds, which have become a major source of funding for political parties in India – and especially the BJP – to be banned. What the court rules could fundamentally determine how India’s coming general elections, between March and May, are fought; how much of a role untraced money plays in it; and who has the resources to dominate the political landscape. Under the electoral bond system introduced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government in 2018, these bonds must be bought from the State Bank of India but can be donated to parties anonymously. While donors using electoral bonds are technically anonymous, however, the State Bank of India is publicly owned, meaning the ruling party has access to its data. This is likely to dissuade large donors from using electoral bonds to donate to opposition parties, critics have said. Furthermore, in 2017, India’s central bank, the Reserve Bank of India, cautioned the Modi government that the bonds could be misused by shell companies to “facilitate money laundering”. In 2019, the country’s Election Commission described the system as “a retrograde step as far as transparency of donations is concerned”. Since 2018, secret donors have given nearly 16,000 crore Indian rupees (more than $1.9bn) to political parties through these bonds. Between 2018 and March 2022 – the period analysed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), a nongovernment organisation – 57 percent of donations via electoral bonds (about $600m) went to Modi’s BJP. As India prepares for more than 900 million voters to go to the polls to elect a new government between March and May, these funds have allowed the BJP to transform itself into a dominant electoral machine. From financing tens of thousands of WhatsApp groups promoting its agenda to paying for the block-booking of private jets, electoral bonds have provided the BJP with a massive injection of resources, which give it a clear edge over its rivals. How do electoral bonds work and why are they being criticised as “undemocratic”? What are electoral bonds? Electoral bonds (EBs) are “bearer” instruments, like currency notes. They are sold in denominations of 1,000 rupees ($12), 10,000 rupees ($120), 100,000 rupees ($1,200), one million rupees ($12,000) and 10 million rupees ($120,000). They can be purchased by individuals, groups or corporate organisations and donated to the political party of their choice, which can then redeem them, free of interest, after 15 days. While political parties are required to reveal the identities of all donors who donate more than 20,000 rupees ($240) in cash, the names of those donating via electoral bonds never have to be revealed, no matter how large the sum. Since their introduction, EBs have become the primary method of political funding – 56 percent of all funding in Indian politics comes from EBs, according to a report by the ADR. The ability to donate money anonymously has made them extremely popular but is also shrouded in secrecy, which many argue is undemocratic and could provide cover for corruption. When it brought in the new law allowing this type of funding, the Modi government also did away with a number of requirements meant to improve transparency in political funding: A previous law capping corporate donations was abolished, companies were no longer required to disclose their donations in their statements, and foreign companies, hitherto not allowed to fund Indian parties, could now do so through their Indian subsidiaries. “The EB legalises backroom lobbying and unlimited anonymous donations,” said Major General Anil Verma (retired), head of the ADR. The secrecy around the donors’ identity, Verma said, was problematic. “It could be big-time corporations or it could be players funnelling illicit money through shell companies – we don’t know who is donating. This has become what many call legalised and institutionalised corruption.” How do electoral bonds benefit the BJP? The BJP is the single biggest beneficiary of electoral bond donations. Data from the Election Commission of India show that 57 percent of total donations between 2018 and March 2022 through EBs went to the BJP, amounting to 5,271 crore rupees (about $635m). By comparison, the next largest party, the Indian National Congress, received 952 crore rupees (about $115m). EB rules specify that only the publicly owned State Bank of India can sell these bonds. This, many argue, ultimately gives the government of the day unchecked power. “Since the bond is issued by a public sector bank, an unprincipled government might get to know the list of donors and recipients,” former Reserve Bank of India governor and economist Raghuram Rajan wrote in an article for the Times of India last year. “Given the carrots and sticks at the government’s disposal, few individuals or corporations would chance donating large sums to the opposition through these bonds,” Rajan added. EBs have also contributed to the BJP’s electoral dominance. “They might be called electoral bonds, but the rules don’t say that the money must be used only for elections,” said retired Indian Navy commodore Lokesh Batra, who has been spearheading a campaign calling for greater transparency in electoral funding. “So, whoever gets more money, the money can be used to buy up media space, boost advertising. Once you have the money, you can use it anywhere,” he added. The mismatch between the funds received by the BJP and its nearest rival, the Congress, serves to illustrate the unequal playing field that EBs have created, critics say. For instance, in May 2023, the Congress and the BJP squared off against each other in state assembly polls in the southern state of Karnataka. Affidavits filed by both parties with the Election Commission show that the

Sara Duterte-Carpio: Feud puts spotlight on Philippines’ vice president

Manila, Philippines – Sara Duterte-Carpio, the Philippine vice president and the odds-on favourite to succeed President Ferdinand Marcos Jr, has found herself navigating an impossible feud – between the president and her own father. Former President Rodrigo Duterte accused Marcos last month of using drugs and publicly floated the idea of a military coup to unseat the president. Last week, he proposed the secession of Mindanao, a southern island and the base of his political power. Marcos initially responded by saying his predecessor’s judgement had been impaired by his use of the synthetic opioid fentanyl, which he previously admitted to using to recover from a motorcycle accident. He also said the call for a separate Mindanao was “doomed to fail”, and his national security adviser threatened to use force to quell any secession attempts. The ongoing political spat has put Duterte-Carpio in a bind, threatening to unravel the alliance crafted by her and Marcos before they were elected in 2022. She has recently split with the president on several issues, including the government reopening peace talks with communist rebels and an ongoing investigation of her father’s deadly drug war by the International Criminal Court. But the Marcos administration’s effort to change the Philippine constitution has created the biggest cleavage between the country’s two most prominent political families. Marcos says he wants to remove existing constitutional restrictions that limit foreign investment. Critics in the Duterte political camp, however, accuse Marcos of plotting to switch the country to a parliamentary system and install House Speaker Martin Romualdez, Marcos’s cousin and a close ally, as his successor before the next presidential election in 2028. Sara Duterte-Carpio and Marcos Jr during their inauguration ceremony in June 2022 [File: Eloisa Lopez/Reuters] Duterte-Carpio has tried to remain neutral, even as her father’s attacks on the president have continued. She was the only member of the Duterte family to appear with Marcos last week when the president visited flood-hit areas of Mindanao. “She wants to keep the Marcos-Duterte alliance together,” said Walden Bello, an adjunct professor of sociology at the State University of New York at Binghamton and former member of the Philippine House of Representatives. “That sort of political arithmetic was the key in 2022, and that’s going to be key in 2028.” ‘Not just her father’s daughter’ The Marcos-Duterte alliance was formed after Duterte-Carpio shocked the country by opting not to run for president in 2022, even though she was the odds-on favourite. Instead, she defied her father’s wishes and opted to run for vice president and support Marcos’s presidential bid – in the Philippines, the president and vice president are elected separately. Her decision all but ensured the pair would win and prevented an upset victory by opposition candidate Leni Robredo, the former vice president and a vociferous critic of Duterte’s drug war. “It was a perfect marriage for the 2022 election,” said Cleve Arguelles, chief executive of the polling firm WR Numero Research. It was also an early sign of Duterte-Carpio’s autonomy from her father, whom she succeeded as mayor of Davao, the largest city in Mindanao. During her time as mayor, she replaced staffers loyal to her father and forged her own set of alliances, including a bond with Imee Marcos, the current president’s sister. The two remain politically aligned. “She’s not just her father’s daughter,” Arguelles said. Duterte-Carpio also cuts a figure different from many of the country’s past prominent female politicians, who have often cast themselves as maternal figures. As Davao mayor, she made headlines for punching a court sheriff. She often wears military fatigues and has joked about cutting her hair short when she wants to appear tough. After their election win, Duterte-Carpio publicly said she wanted to be named defence secretary – in the Philippines, it is common for the vice president to also take a cabinet position – but Marcos named her education secretary, which was widely seen as a snub. “That was a very quick lesson that, oh, you’re not president,” Arguelles said. “There’s no such thing as sharing presidential powers.” Last year, Duterte-Carpio was heavily criticised for requesting about $11.6m in “confidential funds”, which would be used without oversight, in the 2024 national budget. The controversy pulled down her public approval rating from 84 percent in June 2023 to 73 percent in September – still higher than that of Marcos, who registered 65 percent approval. It also created a perception that Marcos’s allies, especially Speaker Romualdez, were plotting against her. “She’s kind of stuck in this alliance,” Arguelles said. “She can’t totally abandon the administration because she knows it’s going to be fatal.” ‘Double game’ Duterte-Carpio’s father and her younger brother, current Davao Mayor Sebastian Duterte, have continued to pressure the president during speeches in Mindanao – and the country’s economic realities could help their cause. Inflation fell to 2.8 percent in January, down from 3.9 percent in December. Rice inflation, however, hit its highest level since 2009, reaching 22.6 percent and threatening a Marcos campaign promise to stabilise prices of the staple food. The Dutertes “are going to really play that up”, Bello said, using furore over rice prices to give energy to their opposition to changing the constitution, which many presidents – including Duterte – have tried unsuccessfully since it was ratified in 1987. Marcos insists his motivations are economic in nature, aimed at removing limits on foreign ownership in companies operating in the Philippines. But that has not quelled speculation that it is a ploy to block a Duterte-Carpio campaign by switching to a parliamentary system, under which elected representatives would build a coalition and choose a prime minister. “There’s [already] a great deal of foreign investment coming in,” Bello said. While companies have learned to work around the current restrictions, “it’s the corruption and instability that worries them”. “And [constitutional change] is going to create such instability at this point in time,” he said. “It’s really roiled the political scene and focused people on the fight between the Marcoses and Dutertes.” Filipino activists

‘Our discussions…’: PM Modi after holding talks with his Qatar counterpart Sheikh Al Thani

According to the Ministry of External Affairs, during the meeting, two leaders exchanged views on expanding bilateral cooperation in sectors such as trade, investment, energy, finance, and technology.

SC to pronounce verdict on validity of Electoral Bond today

The Electoral Bond scheme, which was notified by the government on January 2, 2018, was pitched as an alternative to cash donations made to political parties as part of efforts to bring in transparency in political funding.

Kentucky state Senate passes bill trying juveniles as adults for gun-related felonies

More Kentucky teenagers charged with gun-related felony offenses would be transferred to adult courts to face trial under legislation passed by the state Senate on Wednesday. The measure cleared the Senate on a 25-9 vote to advance to the House. Senate Bill 20 is part of a broader push in the GOP-dominated legislature to toughen penalties for a range of crimes. FORMER KENTUCKY GOVERNOR’S CONTROVERSIAL PARDONS LEAD TO LEGISLATURE SEEKING CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS Under the bill, youths would be transferred to circuit court for trial as adults when charged with serious felony offenses and if they used a gun when allegedly committing the crime. It would apply to youths 15 years old and up and for offenses that include robbery or assault. Republican Sen. Matthew Deneen, the bill’s lead sponsor, said it would ensure that “the time fits the crime” for gun-related offenses committed by teens. “We owe the victims of these gun-related felonies justice, by holding these perpetrators accountable,” Deneen said. “Gun-related crimes are jeopardizing our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” The measure would roll back a criminal-justice policy enacted three years ago in Kentucky. At that time, lawmakers ended the automatic transfer of youths from juvenile court to circuit court in certain cases. Judges now have to hold a hearing to determine whether a transfer is appropriate based on evidence. Once in circuit court, teens can face the same penalties as adults, including prison. Under the new bill, teens convicted in circuit court would be held in a facility for juveniles until turning 18. Republican Sen. Whitney Westerfield, who opposed the new bill, said there’s nothing to indicate that judges are systematically refusing to send such cases involving violent offenses to circuit courts. “There is not one whit of evidence that that’s happening, because it’s not happening,” he said. KENTUCKY MAN GETS 30 YEARS FOR DRUG-INDUCED KILLING OF PHOTOGRAPHER AT BREONNA TAYLOR PROTEST Westerfield has been at the forefront of juvenile justice reforms in recent years. He said the bill would remove a judge’s discretion in deciding which court should hear a case. Various factors are considered, including the youth’s prior record, the likelihood of rehabilitation, whether the child has a serious intellectual disability or there was evidence of gang participation. The bill was amended to allow prosecutors to return such cases to juvenile court. Westerfield responded that it’s “exceedingly rare” for cases to return to juvenile court once they’re transferred to circuit court. Opponents also said the focus should be on the root causes of juvenile crime — such as poverty and recruitment into gangs — as well as intervention and education efforts that can drive down youth crime. Republican Sen. John Schickel responded that the measure is a justifiable response to a groundswell of public frustration over the state’s juvenile justice laws. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP “The public has lost faith that justice is being served with these serious juvenile crimes,” he said.

George judge set to hear evidence against DA Fani Willis in Trump case that could disqualify her

The Georgia judge overseeing the sweeping racketeering case against former president Donald Trump is set to hear evidence Thursday related to allegations that district attorney Fani Willis is having an “improper” affair and should be disqualified from the case.  Fulton County Superior Judge Scott McAfee will hold an evidentiary hearing on Thursday starting at 9:30 a.m. and into Friday on allegations first brought by co-defendant GOP political operative Michael Roman earlier this year.  The allegations in Roman’s court filings, which have been echoed by three subsequent co-defendants in the case, include that Willis was engaged in an “improper” relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade whom she hired to help prosecute Trump.  Willis has admitted to having a “personal” relationship with Wade but has denied any conflict of interest. She also argued that according to Georgia law, in order for a district attorney to be forcibly removed from a case, the conflict of interest has to be harmful to a defendant’s case.  JUDGE IN TRUMP GEORGIA CASE SAYS DA FANI WILLIS’ ALLEGED ‘IMPROPER’ AFFAIR ‘COULD RESULT IN DISQUALIFICATION’ Judge McAfee said on Monday that depending on his findings after hearing the evidence presented from both sides, Willis could be disqualified from the case.  “In studying the law that’s been filed up to this point, I think it’s clear that disqualification can occur if evidence is produced demonstrating an actual conflict or the appearance of one. And the filing submitted on this issue so far have presented a conflict in the evidence that can’t be resolved as a matter of law,” he said.  McAfee was appointed to the bench by Republican Governor Brian Kemp in 2021.  “Specifically looking at defendant Roman’s motion, it alleges a personal relationship that resulted in a financial benefit to the district attorney. And that is no longer a matter of complete speculation. The state has admitted a relationship existed. And so, what remains to be proven is the existence and extent of any financial benefit,” the judge said.  “So, because I think it’s possible that the facts alleged by the defendant could result in disqualification, I think an evidentiary hearing must occur to establish the record on those core allegations,” he said.  Ashleigh Merchant, lawyer for Michael Roman, will take center stage Thursday in presenting what she believes is enough evidence to disqualify Willis and her team.  Terrence Bradley, Wade’s former law partner, will testify first on Thursday. His testimony will determine whether others will be required to testify.  In legal filings last month, Roman alleged that Wade billed Fulton County for 24 hours of work on a single day in November 2021, shortly after being appointed as a special prosecutor, and that Willis financially benefited from her alleged lover’s padded taxpayer-funded salary by taking lavish vacations together on his dime.  According to the court documents, Wade, who has no RICO and felony prosecution experience, billed taxpayers $654,000 since January 2022.   Judge McAfee said Monday that “the particulars” of Wade’s experience will not be relevant in the evidentiary hearing, which will take place on Thursday, Feb. 15, adding, “in my mind as long as a lawyer has a heartbeat and a bar card that lawyer’s appointment standing alone is a matter within the District Attorney’s discretion.” FULTON COUNTY DA FANI WILLIS ADMITS PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PROSECUTOR BUT DENIES CONFLICT OF INTEREST McAfee said the issues “at point” here are “whether a relationship existed, whether that relationship was romantic or non-romantic in nature, when it formed and whether it continues. And that’s only relevant because it’s in combination with the question of the existence and extent of any personal benefit conveyed as a result of their relationship.”  Willis responded to the allegations in a court filing and admitted to having a “personal” relationship with Wade but denied any conflict of interest. She also argued that, according to Georgia law, in order for a district attorney to be forcibly removed from a case, the conflict of interest has to be harmful to a defendant’s case.  GEORGIA WHISTLEBLOWERS LINING UP TO TESTIFY AGAINST FULTON COUNTY DA FANI WILLIS, STATE LAWMAKER SAYS Willis told the Superior Court that while the allegations against her are “salacious,” they have no “merit.” Willis claims that while she and Wade “have been professional associates and friends since 2019,” there was “no personal relationship” between her and Wade in November 2021 at the time of Wade’s appointment, and that Roman and his lawyers “offer no support for their insistence that the exercise of any prosecutorial discretion (i.e., any charging decision or plea recommendation) in this case was impacted by any personal relationship.” Willis’ filing said Roman’s motions “attempt to cobble together entirely unremarkable circumstances of Special Prosecutor Wade’s appointment with completely irrelevant allegations about his personal family life into a manufactured conflict of interest on the part of the District Attorney.” The state has also revealed that DA Willis’ father will be testifying on Thursday, remotely from California.

Special counsel Jack Smith asks SCOTUS to reject Trump request to delay 2020 election case

Special counsel Jack Smith has requested that the U.S. Supreme Court reject former President Donald Trump’s bid to delay his 2020 election interference from going to trial.  Trump’s legal team requested the delay be extended earlier this week as the court considers whether to take up the question whether the former president is immune from prosecution for official acts in the White House. Two lower courts have overwhelmingly rejected that argument, prompting Trump to ask the high court to intervene. Prosecutors responded to Trump’s appeal within two days even though the court had given them until next Tuesday. Though their filing does not explicitly mention the upcoming November election or Trump’s status as the Republican primary front-runner, prosecutors described the case as having “unique national importance” and said that “delay in the resolution of these charges threatens to frustrate the public interest in a speedy and fair verdict.” Smith’s team charged Trump in August with plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. TRUMP DEMANDS DOJ ‘IMMEDIATELY’ DROP CHARGES AGAINST HIM IN CLASSIFIED DOCS CASE AFTER BIDEN DECISION Trump’s lawyers, meanwhile, have argued that he is shielded from prosecution for acts that fell within his official duties as president — a legally untested argument since no other former president has been indicted. The trial judge and then a federal appeals court rejected those arguments, with a three-judge appeals panel last week saying, “We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter.” The proceedings have been effectively frozen by Trump’s immunity appeal, with U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan canceling a March 4 trial date while the appeals court considered the matter. No new date has been set. Earlier Wednesday, prosecutors urged the court to reject Trump’s petition to hear the case, saying that lower court opinions rejecting immunity for the former president “underscore how remote the possibility is that this Court will agree with his unprecedented legal position.” But if the court does want to decide the matter, Smith said, the justices should hear arguments in March and issue a final ruling by late June.  The Associated Press contributed to this report.  

Biden temporarily shields Palestinians from US deportation, cites conditions in Gaza

President Biden on Wednesday issued an order to temporarily halt the deportation of Palestinians from the U.S. for 18 months, citing the worsening humanitarian conditions in the Gaza Strip and West Bank amid Israel’s military offensive against Hamas.  The temporary halt on deportations will be through the Deferred Enforcement Departure, the White House said in a memo.  “Pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct the foreign relations of the United States, I have determined that it is in the foreign policy interest of the United States to defer for 18 months the removal of any Palestinian subject to the conditions and exceptions provided below,”Biden said in the White House statement.  HAMAS HAD COMMAND TUNNEL UNDERNEATH UNRWA’S HEADQUARTERS IN GAZA, ISRAEL SAYS It was not immediately known how many Palestinians would be eligible under the program. Those who are eligible will also be offered work permits. Those considered not eligible are people who have voluntarily returned to the Palestinian territories, anyone convicted of a felony or two or more misdemeanors committed in the U.S., those subject to extradition and anyone who poses a public safety danger, or whose presence here would have adverse foreign policy consequences for the country.  Biden also said many civilians remain in danger in Gaza after the Oct. 7 terror attacks by Hamas.  “There is a desperate need for this,” Abed Ayoub, the executive director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, told the New York Times. “We see the situation in Gaza and Palestine is not getting better, and this is something that is welcome, and we are glad to see it implemented. We hope other measures can come into place.” The move comes as Biden faces pressure from Democrats and pro-Palestinian groups who want his administration to reign in Israel and to quit providing the Jewish state with arms and other military assistance.  Democratic lawmakers have called for Biden to prioritize the safety of Palestinians amid the conflict, which has killed thousands and decimated Gaza. More than 100 Democratic lawmakers called on the White House to use either deferred enforced departure or a similar authority, called temporary protected status, to ensure that Palestinians currently in the U.S. would not be forced to return to dangerous conditions in Gaza, The Associated Press reported.  “More than 28,000 Palestinians — including thousands of women and children — have been killed in the last four months in Gaza,” Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said Wednesday. “Today’s decision by the Administration protects Palestinians in the United States from being forced to return to these clearly dangerous and deadly conditions.”

White House blasted after posting Valentine’s Day meme attacking House Speaker Mike Johnson over border deal

The White House was blasted online over a Valentine’s Day meme making fun of House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., over the doomed border deal. The White House posted on X an image of Johnson with a red background and broken hearts with the caption: “Happy Valentine’s Day, Speaker Johnson.” It was accompanied by a poem that read: “Roses are red, Violets are blue, The border deal was crushed, Because of you.” SENATE PASSES CONTROVERSIAL FOREIGN AID BILL SENDING BILLIONS TO UKRAINE, ISRAEL AND TAIWAN Critics online quickly pointed out Biden administration policies that Republicans and some Democrats have said are exacerbating the crisis at the southern border, resulting in record numbers of migrants and illegal entries into the U.S.  “If I was the House Speaker the response would be something like … Roses are Red, Passion Flowers are Azure, For Three F***ing Years, You Claimed the Border Was Secure,” Doug Powers posted. “Fixed it,” another user wrote: “Roses are red, Commies vote blue, You had the House for two years, This one is on you.” PENTAGON FINALLY RUNS OUT OF MONEY FOR UKRAINE, URGES 50 ALLIES TO CONTINUE SUPPORTING KYIV “Did Speaker Johnson halt deportations? Stop Remain in Mexico? Halt border wall construction? End the border emergency? Unilaterally resettle millions of unvetted illegal immigrants? Nope that was all you, Big Guy,” added Jake Schneider, who runs the Republican Party’s research arm.  One user posted an image of young school children working on laptops with the caption: “Image of The White House staff posting on X.” “The President is 500 years old and his staff is 12,” Derek Hunter said in response to the meme.  President Biden has urged Johnson to bring to the House a bipartisan national security bill passed by the Senate that had several border provisions.  On Tuesday, the Senate passed a $95 billion national security supplemental package to assist Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan. The border measures were omitted.  In his remarks, Biden urged Johnson to immediately bring the bill to the floor, saying, “there’s no question that if the Senate bill was put on the floor in the House of Representatives, it would pass.” Fox News Digital’s Greg Wehner contributed to this report. 

For foreign firms in Hong Kong, national security plans bring fresh chill

Taipei, Taiwan – As Hong Kong moves forward with controversial new national security legislation, its foreign business community is expressing reservations – albeit quietly – about how new rules concerning “state secrets” could affect the international financial hub’s competitiveness and ease of doing business. Until February 28, the Hong Kong government is canvassing views on its plans to implement “Article 23” of the Chinese territory’s mini constitution, which stipulates the need to ban crimes including treason, secession, sedition, subversion and theft of state secrets. After meeting foreign diplomats and business representatives last week, Justice Secretary Paul Lam reported that “everyone is on the same page” on the need to pass the legislation. Lam said that while some members of the public had “concerns” and “questions,” it would be going too far to say they expressed “worries”. It was not long before Lam’s upbeat characterisation of sentiment began to look misplaced. Hong Kong’s Secretary for Justice Paul Lam has downplayed concerns about the proposed national security law [File: Tyrone Siu/Reuters] In interviews with local media, the heads of the Indonesian and German chambers of commerce said businesses were concerned about how the law would be enforced and whether it would bring the former British colony into further alignment with the Chinese mainland. Speaking anonymously to Bloomberg News, several attendees of the consultation session said officials only answered about four questions and left some of those present unsatisfied. Hong Kong’s proposal, which faces little prospect of opposition in the city’s legislature after an electoral overhaul that effectively barred pro-democracy candidates, builds on sweeping national security legislation imposed by Beijing in 2020, following mass pro-democracy protests that turned violent. Under the Beijing-drafted national security law, Hong Kong’s political opposition, pro-democracy civil society, and independent media have been all but wiped out. “Many senior executives already concerned about the tightening atmosphere in Hong Kong will see the new laws as merely heightening their fears,” Andrew Collier, the founder and managing director of Orient Capital Research in Hong Kong, told Al Jazeera. “Article 23 also is a signal that the Hong Kong domestic politicians, and not just the mainland officials through the NSL, are now focusing on security in order to please Beijing.” Hong Kong’s government appears to be sending the message that political control trumps all else, including the economy – much like in mainland China, Collier said. Hong Kong’s image has suffered successive blows in recent years [Dale DeLa Rey/AFP] For more than two decades after its return to Chinese sovereignty, Hong Kong’s reputation as a business hub was buttressed by a trusted legal system inherited from the British and Western-style civil liberties. That image has suffered successive blows in recent years, from mass unrest and property destruction during the 2019 pro-democracy protests, to Beijing’s security crackdowns and some of the world’s longest-lasting COVID curbs during the pandemic. Even voices known for their bullish views on China have lamented the city’s decline. In an opinion piece in the Financial Times this week, Stephen Roach, the former chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia, declared that “Hong Kong is now over”. “In the spring of 2019 at the onset of the democracy protests, the Hang Seng Index was trading at nearly 30,000,” Roach said, referring to the benchmark index of the city’s stock market. “It is now more than 45 per cent below that level at 15,750. Milton Friedman’s favourite free market has been shackled by the deadweight of autocracy.” A Hong Kong government spokesperson told Al Jazeera that enacting national security legislation is the “inherent right of every sovereign state” and that the government’s proposed definition of state secrets is “in line with international practices”. The spokesperson also said the provisions related to state secrets would “only cover acts committed without lawful authority” and the introduction of a “public interest” defence was under consideration. Hong Kong’s stock market has barely risen from where it was when the city was returned to Chinese sovereignty [File: Anthony Kwan/Getty Images] When Hong Kong was once known for a culture of vigorous protest, public demonstrations against Beijing or city officials were practically unheard of in the post-NSL era. The muted opposition to enacting Article 23 is a sign of the times. In 2003, when Hong Kong’s government last attempted to pass legislation related to Article 23, half a million people took to the streets in the largest protests the city had ever seen. When pro-government broadcaster TVB recently asked members of the public for their opinions on the proposed legislation in a series of street interviews, person after person demurred. Kevin Yam, a senior fellow at Georgetown’s Center for Asian Law and former Hong Kong lawyer who is wanted by city authorities for alleged national security offences, said Article 23 may do to Hong Kong’s economy what the NSL did to civil society. “With the NSL to the extent it affected business, it was more about creating a climate of fear. It was more a vibe. It was more the loss of qualified personnel who chose to leave Hong Kong. It’s more indirect,” Yam told Al Jazeera from Australia, where he lives in exile. “Whereas this time around, if we look at the sorts of things that businesses might need to worry about in terms of implications of these changes, it impacts them much more directly,” Yam said. State secrets Of particular concern for businesses is Article 23’s provisions about state secrets, which some fear will be used to adopt mainland China’s expansive definitions of espionage and hamper companies’ ability to gather and share information as part of routine operations. Observers have noted that the definition of state secrets in Hong Kong’s proposed legislation is nearly identical to the wording in China’s Law on Guarding State Secrets. In mainland China, foreign consulting firms Capvision Partners, Mintz Group and Bain & Company were raided last year as part of a campaign targeting alleged espionage. Beijing has also demonstrated that even the most seemingly minor infractions can have serious consequences,