Sex Crimes Ordinance Amendment: “Sham” fraudsters who lure victims overseas for “sex transit” are also regulated. Tang Bingqiang: If it involves inducing an act to occur in Hong Kong, it already falls under jurisdiction.

The government today (the 7th) proposed amendments to Hong Kong’s sexual offences legislation and launched a one-month public consultation. In the afternoon, the Legislative Council’s Panel on Security also discussed the relevant legislation. Legislator Chan Hok-fung is concerned that from time to time, people carry out sexual assault under the pretext of religion. Under the law, how is it defined whether a victim has consented? If the relevant acts take place overseas, does Hong Kong have criminal jurisdiction? Secretary for Security Chris Tang said that the “misunderstanding-related acts” newly created under these amendments are precisely aimed at “sexual transshipment” situations. As long as the perpetrator induces or genuinely violates “as if in the same way” in Hong Kong, Hong Kong will have jurisdiction.

Tang gave the following examples:

Whether the offender deceives the victim in Hong Kong to “sexually transship” them overseas, or whether, during the course of a trip, the offender induces the victim to come to Hong Kong for “sexual transshipment,” Hong Kong can exercise jurisdiction.

Tang said today in the meeting that existing sexual crime offences are inadequate and no longer appropriate, including offences that specify, among other things, the gender involved. Therefore, amendments are being proposed. The government proposes to establish a statutory definition of “consent,” and to specify situations in which the victim is “without consent,” as well as to expand the definition of rape. It will also divide sexual violence offences into categories involving touching and those not involving touching, and make it an offence to force children to watch sexual images, in order to make the law clearer and more explicit, strengthen protection for citizens and children, and reflect the principle of sexual autonomy.

The age of sexual consent set at 16, but consensual intimacy among minors may not necessarily be prosecuted

With the age of “sexual consent” set at 16, if a person who is under the age still engages in intercourse “with consent,” the person who has intercourse with them will also be prosecuted. Several legislators are concerned about how the rules apply in different scenarios. Legislator Wong Kam-leung is concerned that if minors are dating and engage in sexual acts, will they be prosecuted. Legislator Lin Lin said that teenagers aged 16 to 17 are still students, and there is a “grey zone” regarding “sexual consent,” and she is worried that they may be influenced by the authority of coaches or teachers, causing them to mistakenly think they are in love with the other party and thereby suffer sexual exploitation. Legislator Chan Man-yi is concerned that forced reporting of child abuse is defined as involving those under 18. Why is the “sexual consent” age not aligned with this “definition”?

In response, Tang said that sexual intercourse between minors depends on the circumstances. If the two parties do not know each other, prosecution is necessary. However, if it is a “mutually affectionate” situation, it is generally handled with flexibility. For example, if both sets of parents agree, the current approach also uses police caution. “Therefore, it has to be judged on a case-by-case basis.” As for teachers and other persons in positions of authority, Tang said that if authority is involved and a trust relationship is used to intimidate the victim into complying, “even if the victim is 20, it is still against the law.”

Pouring water on girls’ faces at a welcome camp is also a sexual assault involving touching

Meanwhile, Legislator Lin Lin is concerned that during university welcome camps, there are often acts of pouring “strange-coloured” liquid over girls, or deliberately pouring water so that women become wet with sexual intent. Under the new rules, would this also constitute a sexual offence?

Tang said that under this round of amendments, within “sexual offences involving touching,” it is stipulated that pouring liquids onto another person for sexual purposes—including semen, urine, and saliva—also constitutes a sexual offence. Legislator Yip Ngo-dung followed up by asking whether, if two people quarrel and spit at each other, that would also fall within the law’s jurisdiction. Tang stressed that the key lies in the “sexual purpose.” It becomes an offence only if it makes the victim aware that the other party will use, or threatens to use, immediate and unlawful violence against the person, or it causes the victim to feel humiliated, frightened, or distressed. If it is not related to sex, it is not covered by the jurisdiction. For example, “if a lady tells you, ‘Your chest is so pretty,’ and then spits at you, then that is an offence.”

Legislator Koon Ho-ming then followed up by asking whether the definition of “humiliated, frightened, or distressed” is subjective, given that the maximum penalty for the offence can be up to 10 years, and whether the authorities will further define it clearly. Tang said that the legal provisions will be “written more clearly,” but they must have three key elements: “intentionally or recklessly,” “using or threatening to use immediate and unlawful violence against the person,” and causing the victim to feel humiliated, etc.—only then will it constitute an offence.