In April 2026, the Secretary for Security revealed a rehabilitation scheme targeting approximately 7,000 individuals arrested in connection with the 2019 protests in Hong Kong. The scheme offers participants career planning services, internship opportunities, and exchange trips to Mainland China aimed at fostering a “better understanding of the country.” Upon satisfactory completion, prosecution may not be pursued.[1]

At one level, the initiative appears pragmatic. The scale of outstanding cases presents an undeniable burden on the criminal justice system, and prolonged uncertainty is undesirable for both the individuals concerned and the wider community. However, the scheme—as presently described—raises serious legal and constitutional concerns. This article examines those concerns and proposes safeguards necessary for any genuinely conciliatory mechanism.

II. The Proposed “Rehabilitation Scheme”

A.Uncertain Legal Basis

First, the legal basis of the scheme is unclear. The individuals concerned have not been charged—let alone convicted—and are therefore presumed innocent as a matter of constitutional right.[2] They cannot, in principle, be compelled to participate.

Although there exists a Police Superintendent’s Discretionary Scheme (PSDS), under which a superintendent may administer a formal caution in lieu of prosecution, that scheme typically requires an admission of guilt and is confined to minor offences involving offenders of good character and where prosecution is not in the public interest.[3] In contrast, the proposed rehabilitation scheme appears to extend to a wide and undefined range of alleged conduct and imposes requirements of a potentially onerous nature, without clear statutory underpinning or procedural safeguards. Some of the requirements risk being incompatible with fundamental rights, including the presumption of innocence, freedom of expression, and freedom of conscience protected under the Hong Kong Bill of Rights.[4]

B. Absence of Certainty as to Outcome

Secondly, the Government has emphasized that it will continue to “act in accordance with the law” in cases where there is clear evidence of criminal conduct.[5] This leaves open the possibility that participants may still face prosecution notwithstanding their participation in the scheme. Such uncertainty undermines the very rationale of the scheme and risks rendering participation irrational.

C. Attitudinal Assessment and Compelled Expression

Thirdly, the scheme reportedly places weight on participants’ “attitude” and the extent to which they demonstrate “genuine regret.”[6] This raises concerns that participants may be required—explicitly or implicitly—to make statements of remorse or self-criticism, let alone the concern of the subjectivity and arbitrariness in the assessment of attitudinal change. It also raises the question of whether participants will be expected or required to make some form of confession or self-criticism. Such practices echo historical examples—most notably during the Cultural Revolution—where compelled expressions of repentance were required and permanently recorded. Compelled expressions of this nature risk infringing the right to freedom of expression and freedom of conscience. Freedom of expression includes not only the right to speak but also the right not to be compelled to express particular views. Moreover, the privilege against self-incrimination protects individuals from being coerced into admitting wrongdoing. A scheme that conditions legal benefit on compelled expressions of remorse risks infringing both principles.

III. A Comparative Perspective: The UK Driver Education Scheme

That said, given that over 7,000 individuals face the prospect of prosecution for an indefinite period, the idea of a conciliation mechanism is not inherently objectionable. A properly designed scheme could alleviate pressure on the judicial system and serve the broader public interest. However, its legitimacy depends critically on its structure and safeguards.

To illustrate, it is instructive to consider a comparable experience.

I recently received a notice of intended prosecution for failing to comply with a traffic sign. The notice provided three options:

1. Attend a prescribed driver education course;
2. Accept a fixed penalty with penalty points on my driving licence; or
3. Contest the matter in the Magistrates’ Court.

The notice also specifies the offences with details, as well as a link to supporting evidence of the offence (such as CCTV footage) so that I can make an informed decision. Such arrangements are commonly administered under statutory fixed penalty regimes.[7] If I choose to contest the matter and am subsequently convicted in court, I may face a fine, penalty points, and costs.

I chose the first option. Upon completion of the course, the case would be closed: no prosecution, no fine, and no penalty points. These courses—often referred to as National Driver Offender Retraining Scheme (NDORS) courses—are offered as an alternative to prosecution in appropriate cases. [8]

The course lasted for three hours and was conducted by a private provider. Participants could choose among different providers, venues, and physical or online formats. The instructors clarified that they were not police officers, and the course fee did not accrue to general government revenue.

The course was educational in nature. Its purpose was to promote compliance with traffic regulations and safer driving practices. There was no test or assessment; the only requirement was attendance and appropriate conduct (respectful attitude and respect the privacy of other participants). It covers the latest changes in the law, how to be a more careful driver, how to anticipate hazards and how to deal with certain issues on the road (eg, agitation, aggressive behaviour of other drivers, tailgating etc). There were good discussions throughout the course. The only limit is that the instructors would not go into a discussion of whether the rules are fair (eg, whether 20 mph speed limit is reasonable).

Importantly, while the course aimed to influence behaviour, any attitudinal change was voluntary. Participants were not required to admit guilt, express remorse, or demonstrate ideological conformity.

Upon completion, the prosecution was discontinued.

IV. Key Differences

Although both schemes involve an element of compulsion—participants must choose between compliance and the risk of prosecution—the UK scheme, which is statutorily based, contains safeguards absent from the Hong Kong proposal, and is characterised by clarity, transparency, and certainty of outcome.

Firstly, the alleged offence is clearly specified, and supporting evidence is provided. This enables an informed decision as to whether to contest the allegation, consistent with the right to a fair hearing.

Secondly, the structure and requirements of the course are transparent. Participants know in advance what is expected.

Thirdly, the course is strictly educational. It does not require confession, remorse, or ideological alignment. Whether it will lead to attitudinal change is a matter for the participants.

Fourthly, completion of the course guarantees that no prosecution will follow. This outcome is automatic and not contingent on subjective assessments or further discretionary evaluation.

V. Recommendations

If the Hong Kong scheme is to function as a genuine mechanism of reconciliation, several reforms are necessary.

Firstly, it should be renamed. The term “rehabilitation” presupposes guilt and is inappropriate for individuals who have not been charged. A term such as “reconciliation scheme” would be more appropriate.

Secondly, the alleged offences and the substance of the prosecution case against each participant should be clearly disclosed. This is essential to enable an informed choice between participation and contesting the allegations.

Thirdly, the content and requirements of the scheme must be set out in advance with sufficient clarity, including the nature of activities and the time commitment. The content and requirements have to be reasonable and proportionate.

Fourthly, there should be no requirement to demonstrate any attitudinal change or to express remorse. Any educational objective must be achieved through persuasion rather than compulsion. Coercive expression may engage the right against self-incrimination and freedom of expression.

Fifthly, while the decision to offer participation may remain within police discretion, successful completion should result in the automatic discontinuance of prosecution. Such certainty is essential to fairness and legal certainty. The outcome must not depend on further discretionary assessment.

Sixthly, the scheme should have a clear statutory basis. At present, legal foundation of the Rehabilitation Scheme appears uncertain. A scheme affecting such a large number of individuals, and engaging fundamental rights, should be grounded in legislation subject to scrutiny by the legislature. This would ensure legal certainty, define the scope of discretion, and provide safeguards against arbitrary or inconsistent application.

Seventhly, there should be a defined time limit for prosecution in cases where the scheme is not offered or not taken up. It is undesirable for individuals to remain indefinitely under the threat of prosecution. A clear limitation period would promote finality, fairness, and legal certainty, and would be consistent with the broader principles underpinning criminal justice.

VI. Conclusion

It has now been almost seven years since the 2019 protests. Hong Kong has undergone profound and far-reaching changes in that time. Society has, in many respects, been torn, divided, wounded, and suppressed.

Against this background, it is highly undesirable for the future of over 7,000 individuals to remain in a state of uncertainty. As time passes, evidence inevitably becomes stale and witness recollection increasingly unreliable. This not only undermines the fairness of any eventual trial but also hampers both the prosecution and the defence in the proper administration of justice.

The community must, at some point, move forward. There are concerns that the existing Rehabilitation Scheme is a kind of “brainwashing” scheme. Such concerns are perfectly understandable. However, if the above modifications are adopted so that there would not be any coercive element, particularly regarding expression of remorse or regret, a scheme which could clear the cloud of uncertainty over the future of 7,000 young people would certainly worth considering.

It must be emphasized that a properly designed reconciliation scheme could contribute meaningfully to that process of healing. However, its legitimacy depends on whether it is genuinely conciliatory in nature. A scheme that lacks transparency, imposes ideological conditions, or leaves participants exposed to continuing uncertainty risks doing the opposite—deepening grievances rather than resolving them.

Footnotes

[1] Hong Kong SAR Government, statements by the Secretary for Security (April 2026) (details reported in media briefings; full scheme terms not publicly codified at time of writing). Leopold Chen, “Rehabilitation project open to all 2019 Hong Kong protest arrestees: Chris Tang”, South China Morning Post, 12 April 2026: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/3349779/rehabilitation-project-open-all-2019-hong-kong-protest-arrestees-chris-tang?module=perpetual_scroll_0&pgtype=article.

[2] Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap. 383), art. 11(1): “Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.”

[3] Hong Kong Police Force, Rules and Directions for the Questioning of Suspects and the Taking of Statements; see also Department of Justice, Prosecution Code (on cautioning in lieu of prosecution).

[4] Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap. 383), arts. 11 (fair trial), 16 (freedom of expression), 18 (freedom of thought and conscience).

[5] Leopold Chen, “Rehabilitation project open to all 2019 Hong Kong protest arrestees: Chris Tang”, South China Morning Post, 12 April 2026: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/3349779/rehabilitation-project-open-all-2019-hong-kong-protest-arrestees-chris-tang?module=perpetual_scroll_0&pgtype=article.

[6] HKSAR Government public statements (April 2026) emphasising continued adherence to “the law” in handling protest-related offences. Such public statement was made by a Cantopop Singer Hins Cheung, who was “converted” and would lead visiting groups to the Mainland under the Rehabilitation Scheme: “Singer Hins Cheung to mentor youth detained in 2019 unrest after apology”, The Standard, 11 April 2026: https://www.thestandard.com.hk/news/article/329042/

[7] Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (UK), Part III (fixed penalty offences).

[8] UK National Police Chiefs’ Council, National Driver Offender Retraining Scheme (NDORS) policy framework.

▌ [De Bene Esse] About the Author

Professor Johannes Chan is an Honorary Professor of University College London and the former Chair of Public Law, The University of Hong Kong.