Hong Kong lawmakers have all agreed to a new national security law on Tuesday, which allows the government to suppress disagreement. This has been seen as the latest move in a broad crackdown on politics that started with pro-democracy protests in 2019.
During a special meeting, the legislature passed the Safeguarding National Security Bill. This law will give authorities more ability to charge citizens for crimes like collaborating with outside forces, treason, inciting revolt, spying, and revealing state secrets, among other things.
This new law comes in addition to a similar one imposed by Beijing in 2020, which has already significantly silenced opposing voices in Hong Kong. Critics are concerned that this new law will further weaken the civil rights that Beijing vowed to protect for 50 years after the former British colony returned to Chinese rule in 1997.
Following an electoral overhaul, the Legislative Council in Hong Kong, which is filled with Beijing supporters, hurriedly passed the law. After the bill was revealed on March 8, a committee met daily for a week, as requested by Hong Kong leader John Lee to expedite the law. Lee announced that the law will take effect on Saturday after the vote.
He said, “Today is a historic moment for Hong Kong.”
The newly approved law carries severe penalties for a wide range of actions considered threats to national security, with the most serious crimes punishable by life imprisonment. Lesser offenses, like the possession of seditious publications, could result in several years in prison. Some provisions allow for criminal prosecution for acts committed anywhere in the world.
Legislative Council President Andrew Leung said in the morning that he believed all lawmakers were honored to have taken part in this “historic mission.” Council presidents usually choose not to participate in such votes, but this time, Leung cast his vote to commemorate the occasion.
John Burns, a politics and public administration professor at the University of Hong Kong, mentioned that the process showed the city’s “disabled accountability system, weakened by design.”
He stated that lawmakers did scrutinize the bill in detail and the government accepted some proposed amendments. However, during the debate, many lawmakers mainly focused on expanding the state’s authority over national security matters and increasing penalties for related crimes. Burns added that the executive authorities were happy to accommodate them.
“For those who care about responsible government, the process is disappointing, but not unexpected, considering the changes imposed since 2020,” Burns said.
Simon Young, a professor at the University of Hong Kong’s law faculty, mentioned that the legislature did more than simply approve the law, pointing out that officials participated in long meetings to clarify and modify the bill. However, Young noted that in the past, lawmakers might have sought expert opinions.
He expressed disappointment that this was not done on this occasion.
However, Beijing’s liaison office in Hong Kong stated on Tuesday that the legislation indicated a strong "firewall" has been constructed for the city’s stability and prosperity, allowing it to concentrate on promoting economic development and improving people’s lives. Lee also mentioned that other countries had passed laws to address risks when necessary.
The political situation in Hong Kong has changed significantly since the massive 2019 street protests that challenged China’s rule over the semi-autonomous territory and the imposition of Beijing’s National Security Law.
Numerous prominent activists have been prosecuted, while others have sought refuge abroad. Influential pro-democracy media such as Apple Daily and Stand News were closed. The crackdown led to an exodus of disheartened young professionals and middle-class families to the U.S., Britain, Canada, and Taiwan.
Hong Kong’s mini-constitution, the Basic Law, mandates the city to enact a locally-made national security law. A previous attempt in 2003 sparked a massive street protest that drew half a million people and forced the legislation, locally known as Article 23, to be shelved. Such protests against the current bill were absent largely due to the chilling effect of the existing security law.
The Chinese and Hong Kong governments assert that the Beijing-imposed law restored stability after the 2019 protests.
Officials affirm that the new security law balances security with safeguarding rights and freedoms. The city government stated it is necessary to prevent a repetition of the protests, and that it will only affect "an extremely small minority" of residents.
The new law includes severe penalties for individuals found guilty of endangering national security for certain offenses if they’re found to be collaborating with foreign governments or organizations rather than acting on their own. For instance, it targets those who damage public infrastructure with the intent to endanger the state and could be imprisoned for 20 years, or, if they colluded with external forces, for life. In 2019, protesters took over Hong Kong’s airport and vandalized railway stations.
Businesspeople and journalists have expressed concerns that such a broad law will impact their daily work.
Observers are closely monitoring to see if authorities will expand enforcement to other professional sectors and how it will affect the liberties of Hong Kongers.
The passage of the bill quickly received criticism.
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, condemned the accelerated adoption of the bill as “a regressive step for the protection of human rights in Hong Kong.”
U.K. Foreign Secretary David Cameron stated that “the broad definitions of national security and external interference will make it harder for those who live, work and do business in Hong Kong” and continue the “erosion of freedoms” there.
The European Union stated that the bill has the potential to “significantly affect” the work of the EU office and consulates of EU members and could impact European Union citizens, organizations and companies in Hong Kong. “This also raises questions about Hong Kong’s long-term attractiveness as an international business hub,” it said in a statement.
The U.S. State Department stated in a daily briefing that the law could speed up the closing of Hong Kong’s once open society and raised concerns about the vagueness of its language. Spokesman Vedant Patel mentioned that the department would analyze the law’s potential risk to U.S. citizens and businesses. He chose not to say whether the U.S. would take any action, as recommended by some U.S. lawmakers.
The White House did not have an immediate response to the Hong Kong security law when Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre was asked by reporters aboard Air Force One on Tuesday.
Rep. Chris Smith and Sen. Jeff Merkley, who lead a congressional panel on China, urged the Biden administration to sanction Hong Kong officials over the new legislation, which they said further restricts fundamental freedom and strips due process rights, making Hong Kong less safe for residents and U.S. business.
Michael McCaul, the chairman of the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in a statement that China’s takeover of the city’s legal, economic and political system makes clear that Hong Kong is no longer a place safe for anyone who believes in democracy nor a viable place to conduct global business.
