Hong Kong plans to enact its own security law, arriving almost three decades after the issue first emerged. A 110-page document has been sent to Legco, the city’s legislature, for public consultation. The pace feels brisk. The chief executive, John Lee, citing ongoing external threats and the territory’s constitutional framework, said the move was urgent. Why now? He argued the moment cannot be postponed. We have waited too long, he asserted, stressing that a response is needed now, not later.
The legal change centers on Article 23 of the Basic Law, the compact that governs the relationship between Hong Kong and the mainland since the city’s return to China in 1997. There has long been debate about processing such protections. In calmer years, public demonstrations have cooled, and Beijing’s position on maintaining stability has stayed consistent. Yet the protests of 2019 shifted the mood dramatically. Beijing feared that Hong Kong could not rein in dissent, and after a difficult year drafted a Security Law in its parliament and sent it to the island with urgency. The legislation criminalizes actions such as secession, subversion, and terrorism, with penalties including life imprisonment. Authorities argued the measure would suppress protests, limit opposition, and remove the risk of activists being driven underground or forced into exile.
Five new crimes
Against this backdrop, Hong Kong moved to fulfill a long-standing obligation. The city has gone more than twenty years without a dedicated security statute, and now two are on the horizon. The new draft adds five offenses: treason, espionage, subversion endangering national security, and foreign interference. Experts warn the text will do more than fill gaps; it may interpret vague phrases such as the protection of state secrets and espionage in a modern, operational sense. The language aims to clarify the procedures surrounding national security cases and align with international practice, reducing legal ambiguity that has slowed prosecutions. One emblematic case, the long-running trial of a prominent media figure accused of colluding with foreign actors, has endured delays that illustrate the broader tension.
Officials emphasize that foreign agents and independence advocates remain present in society, even as leaders from protests have been seen in association with foreign interlocutors, particularly from the United States. The broader driver cited is public disillusionment with what some residents see as a gradual erosion of freedoms and a different civic ecosystem in which voices of dissent feel constrained.
The chief executive stated this week that the revised law will safeguard core rights, including assembly, press freedom, and free expression, while noting that rights come with limits. The submitted document asserts that Hong Kong’s legal framework will be consistent with international norms and references comparable measures in other democracies. The United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia are mentioned in discussions of comparative standards and possible implications for cross-border cooperation.
Public opinion within Hong Kong remains divided about the Beijing-introduced legislation. For some, the measure signals a return to stability for Asia’s leading financial hub and a resolution to the political crisis that ended the city’s most turbulent period. For others, it seems to undermine the promised framework of one country, two systems, and to extend Beijing’s reach over local governance. It is clear that the debate will continue to polarize segments of society as the law moves through the legislative process.