Hong Kong’s recently enacted Safeguarding National Security Ordinance blocked the first inmate’s sentence remission under the Prison Rules on Tuesday. The same day, Hong Kong Chief Executive John Lee said that serious national security crime offenders would not likely be granted early release unless the Commissioner of Correctional Services believes early release would not undermine national security interests.

Ma Chun Man was originally about to finish serving his sentence this Tuesday after he received a remission of sentence on the grounds of his industry and good conduct pursuant to Rule 69 of the Prison Rules. Nonetheless, the ordinance provides that prisoners must not be granted remission unless the Commissioner of Correctional Services is satisfied that the prisoner’s being granted remission will not be contrary to national security interests. The ordinance further provides that the rule applies to prisoners’ sentences even imposed before the commencement of the ordinance. Lee contended that the rule reflects the seriousness of national security offenses and advised the public not to defy the law, hoping that they could receive a remission.

Ma was convicted of incitement to secession under the 2020 National Security Law. In November 2021, Judge Stanley Chan held that the case was of a serious nature because the defendant was not remorseful for his repetitive act of incitement to secession. Chan further contended that the defendant was proud of his actions by naming himself “Captain America 2.0.” Ma was also found to have misled the public by derogating the 2020 National Security Law and claiming the law was not effective as bail was granted to him repeatedly.

Similarly ruled by the appellate court, Chan held that whether Ma used violence or threat of violence is not the determining factor on the seriousness of this case. Promoting “insurrection” and “army building” amounted to a serious violation of the incitement to secession under the 2020 National Security Law. However, the appellate court ruled that the sentence was manifestly excessive as the defendant’s culpability was relatively low within the said category. Ultimately, the court imposed five years of imprisonment on Ma.