Chris Tang on Absence of Banned Books List Amid Raids

Hong Kong’s Secretary for Security, Chris Tang Ping-keung, has publicly defended the government’s decision not to publish an official list of banned books, following police raids on independent bookshops across the city. Speaking on Monday, Tang argued that issuing a definitive index of forbidden titles would simply offer a loophole for individuals attempting to bypass the law.

According to Tang, publishing a set list would allow those intent on committing offences to evade prosecution by simply changing a book’s title while leaving the underlying text intact. Law enforcement, he stressed, evaluates the actual content of a publication rather than its cover, warning that altering a title would not protect sellers or publishers from legal consequences.

Evaluating Content Over Covers

The refusal to provide a concrete catalogue of prohibited literature leaves booksellers and publishers operating in an ambiguous legal landscape. Tang reiterated a comparison he has drawn previously, likening the distribution of books to selling food. Booksellers, he argued, carry a duty of care equivalent to food vendors who must ensure they do not “sell poison” to the public.

This approach means the burden of compliance falls entirely on retailers, who are expected to self-regulate without explicit guidance on which titles cross the legal line. In July, Tang had similarly noted that maintaining a public list would not support effective law enforcement efforts aimed at material intended to harm national security.

Mong Kok Raids and Seditious Intent

The renewed scrutiny follows recent police actions targeting independent literary spaces in Mong Kok, including Have A Nice Stay and Greenfield Book Store. Officers arrested five individuals on suspicion of committing acts with seditious intent under the city’s Safeguarding National Security Ordinance.

These enforcement actions demonstrate how broad legal mandates are being applied directly to retail bookselling. While authorities insist that law-abiding businesses have nothing to fear, the lack of defined parameters makes it increasingly difficult for shop owners to know which historical or political works might trigger an investigation.

This dynamic is hardly unique to Hong Kong, though the mechanism here relies on deliberate vagueness rather than explicit statutory bans. In many parts of the world, state pressure on literature forces readers and vendors into precarious positions. We have seen similar atmosphere-driven restrictions globally, from clandestine book clubs operating under authoritarian regimes to formal state-sanctioned removals.

The Impact of Illdefined Boundaries

From a publishing perspective, the absence of a clear list introduces a distinct form of censorship: self-censorship driven by uncertainty. When the boundaries of legality are intentionally kept fluid, retailers are likely to err on the side of caution, pulling entire categories of political, historical, or cultural works from their shelves simply to avoid potential prosecution.

If you ask me, this strategy of enforcement through ambiguity is often far more effective at clearing shelves than a physical list ever could be. A public list can be challenged, scrutinised, or audited by legal experts. An unwritten boundary, enforced retroactively through police raids, leaves the entire industry guessing where the safe ground lies.

The broader pattern mirrors international trends where international rights groups and formerly jailed writers advocating for imprisoned peers continue to highlight how national security frameworks are deployed against the written word. For Hong Kong’s remaining independent booksellers, navigating this landscape means making daily judgments on text, context, and intent with little more than official warnings to guide them.