More than three weeks after the Hong Kong Police Force issued arrest warrants for eight former Hong Kong residents wanted for suspected involvement in national security crimes, international criticism of Hong Kong’s legitimate law enforcement actions continues to fester.

The criticisms range from accusing Hong Kong of issuing “bounties” to hunt down “democracy activists” to using extraterritorial powers to silence the opposition.

The sensational language used by Western media did not help to elucidate the true nature of the actions taken by the police. The word “bounty” smacks of rewards offered to bounty hunters in America’s Wild West during its expansion era, as depicted in Clint Eastwood movies. But this is not the true story.

The official statement issued by the police on July 3, which stated that “the court had approved to issue arrest warrants regarding eight persons who have absconded overseas and allegedly contravened the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in Hong Kong Special Administrative Region”, shows clearly that the police were backed by a court order and were acting strictly in accordance with the National Security Law for Hong Kong (NSL).

Article 37 of the NSL provides clearly that the NSL shall apply to any permanent resident, or incorporated or unincorporated body set up in the HKSAR if an offense is committed outside the region.

Article 38 further provides that the law shall apply to a person who is not a permanent resident of Hong Kong if an offense is committed outside Hong Kong.

Extraterritorial powers are nothing new to Hong Kong. As early as in the 1970s, the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance was given extraterritorial jurisdiction so that the Independent Commission Against Corruption could pursue anyone involved in bribery offenses committed outside Hong Kong.

In 2003 Hong Kong enacted the Prevention of Child Pornography Ordinance, which criminalizes the production, possession and publication of child pornography. It also amended the Crimes Ordinance so that the police could bring to justice Hong Kong residents engaged in sexual exploitation of children under 16 overseas. Extraterritorial powers were considered necessary because of the international dimensions of such heinous acts.

With transnational crimes becoming increasingly common, law enforcement agencies around the world are adding extraterritorial powers to their laws to help each other fight cross-border crimes.

Extraterritorial powers are deemed essential to address “hostile state threats”, a new concept adopted by the United Kingdom in its recently updated national security law. Other than introducing a comprehensive panoply of modern-day national security offenses, the UK’s National Security Act 2023, which came into force on July 11, expanded the remit of new espionage offenses and “preparatory offenses” to include acts committed outside the UK.

It beggars belief that countries with longstanding and broadly applicable national security laws with extraterritorial application would be dismayed by similar laws in force in Hong Kong, but which are much more limited in scope

In recent years, there has been no lack of high-profile cases involving the use of extraterritorial powers by Western countries against their targets. Dr Patrick Ho Chi-ping, Hong Kong’s former secretary for home affairs, was convicted of bribery offenses in a US federal court in 2018, under the US’ Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, for offenses committed outside the US.

In the same year, Meng Wanzhou, deputy chair of the board and chief financial officer of Huawei Hong Kong, was arrested in Canada for alleged involvement in bank and wire fraud to circumvent US sanctions against Iran. She was held in home custody for years.

Another well-known case where extraterritorial powers under US laws were applied is that of Australian whistle-blower Julian Assange, who is wanted in the US for alleged offenses under its Espionage Act. The Australian government is not known to have spoken up in support of Assange’s freedom of expression.

In the latest national security case involving a Hong Kong resident, William Majcher, a retired Royal Canadian Mounted Police officer who operated a corporate risk advisory firm in Hong Kong, was charged on  July 21 with the nebulous offense of “foreign interference” after allegedly spying for the Chinese government and targeting an individual on its behalf.

These are just some instances of Western countries asserting their muscular extraterritorial laws in the name of national security.

Compared to the wide-ranging national security laws already in place in many countries, Hong Kong’s NSL, which has introduced only four new offenses, pales in comparison. Without extraterritorial jurisdiction, the NSL could be easily circumvented by individuals who have chosen to commit national security offenses outside Hong Kong.

It beggars belief that countries with longstanding and broadly applicable national security laws with extraterritorial application would be dismayed by similar laws in force in Hong Kong, but which are much more limited in scope.

Questions have also been raised as to the practical effect of Hong Kong’s warrants of arrest, as the countries harboring the eight individuals are unlikely to cooperate by sending them back.

In spite of that reality, the issue of arrest warrants is necessary as it sends a clear signal to the world, especially overseas Hong Kong communities, that the eight individuals are dangerous people capable of committing and inciting national security offenses and should be avoided like the plague.

The court order authorizing the arrest warrants would also empower the police to take follow-up action to investigate any financial or other support rendered by their family members or other associates in Hong Kong.

The idea of a “HK$1 million bounty per head” ($128,000) is a colorful but crude rendition of the investigative process involved. Like other law enforcement agencies around the world, the Hong Kong Police Force has a “special expenditure” vote that allows it to give rewards for intelligence received. The amounts payable depend on the value of the intelligence received.

The Hong Kong Police Force’s action in protecting national security is no different from those of their counterparts overseas. Western condemnations boil down to one reality — powerful developed countries have globally applicable laws and can do what they like to safeguard national security, but not China’s Hong Kong.

The author is convener of the Executive Council and a legislator.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.