Hong Kong passes far-reaching security laws and bows to Beijing

Hong Kong passed national security laws on Tuesday at Beijing’s insistence, thwarting decades of public resistance. Critics say this will deal a lasting blow to the partial autonomy the city was promised by China.

Hong Kong already had a national security law, and that’s what it was imposed directly by the leaders of the Chinese Communist Party in 2020, after months of anti-government demonstrations in the city. That law effectively silenced dissent in Hong Kong. sending opposition members to prison or in exile.

The new legislation, which was passed with extraordinary speed, gives authorities even greater powers to crack down on opposition to Beijing and the Hong Kong government, imposing penalties – including life imprisonment – for political crimes such as treason and insurrection, that are vaguely defined. It also focuses on crimes such as “external interference” and the theft of state secrets, creating potential risks for multinational companies and international groups operating in the Asian financial center.

Analysts say the legislation, which comes into effect on March 23, could have a chilling effect on a wide range of people, including entrepreneurs, civil servants, lawyers, diplomats, journalists and academics, raising questions about Hong Kong’s status as an international city.

In the eyes of Beijing, these laws are long overdue.

When Hong Kong, a former British colony, was brought under Chinese rule in 1997, the country was given a mini-constitution to protect civil liberties unknown in mainland China, such as freedom of speech, assembly and the media. But China also pushed for a provision called Article 23, which required Hong Kong to enact a package of internal security laws to replace colonial-era sedition laws.

The first attempts to pass such legislation, in 2003, cause massive protests involving hundreds of thousands of people. Top officials resigned, and in the years that followed, city leaders were reluctant to raise the matter again, fearing public backlash.

But in recent months, the Chinese Communist Party has urged the Hong Kong government to enact Article 23 laws. The city’s Beijing-backed leader, John Lee, has said the laws are needed to stamp out unrest and combat what he calls spying efforts by Western intelligence services.

There was little chance that China’s will would not be heeded; Hong Kong’s legislature has been overwhelmingly filled with pro-Beijing lawmakers since China overhauled its electoral system to exclude candidates not considered “patriots.”

The new laws focus on five types of crimes: treason, insurrection, theft of state secrets, sabotage and outside interference. They also introduce important changes to due process. In some cases, police can now seek permission from magistrates to prevent suspects from consulting lawyers of their choice if this is considered a threat to national security.

Human rights groups said that by quickly passing the law, authorities had changed course on the freedoms once promised to the city.

Amnesty International said that the overarching purpose of the laws was to “suppress all criticism of the Chinese and Hong Kong authorities and their policies, within the city and globally.” The government has criticized foreign-based human rights organizations as “anti-China” and “anti-government” organizations.

The legislation also gives the city’s leader, known as the chief executive, the power to enact new related laws, which carry penalties of up to seven years in prison, without legislative intervention. The leader would consult the Cabinet before enacting such a law; the legislative council, known as the LegCo, could later amend or reject the law.

Such a mechanism would not be new to Hong Kong, but it increases the potential for abuse given the broad scope of the new legislation, said Thomas E. Kellogg, executive director of the Center for Asian Law at Georgetown University.

“This is deeply disturbing,” Professor Kellogg wrote in an email. “The LegCo gives the CEO the power to expand the law even further, in ways that could further infringe on fundamental rights.”

The vague wording of the legislation – for example in the way it defines offenses such as the theft of state secrets – is similar to language found in security legislation in mainland China. And under the new laws, anyone who “shares information that appears to be confidential,” even if it is not classified as a state secret, could be punished if that person, in the eyes of authorities, intended to endanger national security.

Business leaders in Hong Kong say such changes could increase the costs of operating in the city by requiring companies to scrutinize documents and other information shared by employees to ensure they do not inadvertently violate the new law.

One risk is that Hong Kong’s relative business advantage over the mainland could be eroded, said Johannes Hack, chairman of the German Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong.

“Part of the unique value that Hong Kong has for Western (German) stakeholders is the openness of the city and we believe that the balance between openness and the desire for security must be properly calibrated,” he wrote in a message on WhatsApp.

Olivia Wang reporting contributed.