Public supports prompt implementation of Hong Kong’s Article 23 national security law, John Lee says – Technologist

Most public proposals submitted during a consultation for Hong Kong’s domestic national security law have supported the prompt implementation of the legislation, the city leader has said, although one leading European business association remained concerned about its “vaguely defined concepts”.

Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu said on Wednesday, the last day of the 30-day consultation window, that the Security Bureau was “making every effort” to analyse public submissions on the Article 23 legislation.

“The vast majority of submissions we receive are in support of the timely legislation of Article 23 of the Basic Law,” he told the press after bidding farewell to Xia Baolong, the head of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, who finished a week-long trip to the city.

“The Security Bureau will do its best to complete all analyses and summaries, and will report to the Legislative Council, with the goal to complete the legislation of Article 23 of the Basic Law as soon as possible,” Lee said.

Under Article 23 of the Basic Law, the city’s mini-constitution, the Hong Kong government is required to enact national security laws “on its own”.

The proposed legislation, which will sit alongside the national security law that Beijing imposed in 2020, targets five new types of offences: treason, insurrection, theft of state secrets and espionage, sabotage endangering national security, and external interference.

Hong Kong’s Article 23 security law needs public interest defence: lawyers

The European Chamber of Commerce (ECC) said on Wednesday its representatives had taken part in various briefings with the government, and its members had voiced concerns regarding the proposed law.

“Some of our members have shared concerns in relation to what they consider vaguely defined concepts like ‘state secrets’ and ‘foreign interference’,” it wrote in a statement.

“The ECC would ask the government to consider ways in which more clarity may be achieved as the legislative proposal is drafted. The ECC looks forward to staying involved and providing its feedback as the process moves forward.”

The association said it acknowledged that Hong Kong was obliged by the Basic Law to impose the domestic national security law, and understood it would be a “key milestone” in implementing the “one country, two systems” framework.

“The ECC has noted that the consultation [paper] emphasises the need to uphold the rule of law and fundamental rights and freedoms in accordance with the Basic Law,” it said.

“It is the view of the ECC that these are indeed fundamental to the functioning of Hong Kong as a free market and an international financial centre.”

Beijing’s point man in Hong Kong could clear the air on patriotism

Meanwhile, the Centre for Asian Law at Georgetown University in the US on Tuesday submitted its views on the proposed law in a 31-page document to the government, describing the proposal as “highly problematic”.

It said it believed the new legislation was unnecessary at the moment, as Hong Kong was not facing any national security threats.

“If new laws are enacted, and existing laws amended, along the lines put forward in the proposal, we believe that the impact on human rights and the rule of law in Hong Kong will be significant. We are also deeply concerned that the business environment will be affected as well,” it wrote.

“Instead, [the city] faces a crisis of confidence in its legal and political institutions, one generated by the government’s aggressive implementation of the national security law. Further legislation will only exacerbate this crisis, and should therefore be avoided.”

The centre said references drawn by the consultation to laws of other countries were “disingenuous at best, or willfully misleading at worst”.

“Most of the states named in the consultation document have not used their national security laws to jail opposition politicians, for example, or to close down media outlets that have published pieces critical of the government,” the centre said.

“Nor have the countries named in the consultation document claimed jurisdiction over foreign citizens based overseas, whose only alleged crime is to lobby their own government over rights abuses taking place elsewhere.”

Neither Hong Kong society nor the Legislative Council were able to oppose the authorities’ preferences or even provide a critical assessment of the proposal following the crackdown under the national security law, it added.