Before the outbreak of the “black-clad” riots in 2019, most Hong Kong residents took it for granted that Hong Kong was always a stable and law-abiding society. The good times of wine and roses would keep on rolling in our peaceful city. We did not treasure law and order until many districts in the city suddenly became battlefields in the second half of 2019. It came as a great shock that over 5,000 petrol bombs were hurled by the rioters, and over 10,000 people were arrested by the police.

It is easy in retrospect to understand why anti-China rioters were able to take the law into their own hands during the riots. Since its return to the motherland, Hong Kong has been unable to enact national security laws in accordance with Article 23 of the Basic Law, thus resulting in a legal loophole on safeguarding national security. As a result, rioters had made several attempts to exploit the loophole. Although the “Occupy Central” movement of 2014 and the Mong Kok Riot of 2016 posed a serious threat to social stability, the urgent need to implement Article 23 remained on the periphery of our concerns. Below is a chronology of our neglect of the pressing need to implement Article 23.

Following the resignation of then-chief executive Tung Chee-hwa in 2005, his successor, Donald Tsang Yam-kuen, did not make any attempt to reintroduce Article 23 legislation. Tsang was re-elected in 2007 to serve a full five-year term. Tsang gave priority to launching political reforms toward the goal of universal suffrage for the election of the chief executive and the whole of the Legislative Council. As Professor Albert Chen Hung-yee has pointed out, during the Tsang administration, the central authorities were willing to let the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region move forward in the domain of political reform and democratization without requiring or insisting that it should first fulfill its constitutional duty to implement Article 23 (The National Security Law of the HKSAR, in Hualing Fu & Michael Hor (eds.), The National Security Law of Hong Kong: Restoration and Transformation (HK: Hong Kong University Press, 2022). From 2012 to 2022, the next two chief executives also failed to push through Article 23 legislation because of obstruction by the opposition camp.

The political situation underwent a metamorphosis in the second half of 2020. The Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPC) was authorized to enact the National Security Law for Hong Kong (NSL) in June 2020. Article 3 of the “Decision on Establishing and Improving the Legal System and Enforcement Mechanisms for the HKSAR to Safeguard National Security”, passed by the NPC on May 28, 2020, stresses that the HKSAR must complete the national security legislation stipulated in the Basic Law as early as possible. HKSAR government officials responded by saying that the city’s own separate legislation should be passed as soon as possible.

In his second Policy Address, delivered in October, Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu vowed to eradicate the causes of chaos. The Safeguarding National Security Bill was recently added to the Legislative Council’s 2024 agenda. According to the agenda entry, the bill seeks to enhance relevant laws for safeguarding national security, and makes provisions for related matters.

After the 2019 black-clad riots, more and more Hong Kong residents understand the importance of safeguarding national security. Moreover, the promulgation of the NSL has offered residents a first glimpse of the indispensable role played by national security laws in restoring order and maintaining stability in the city

Executive Council Convener Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee recently said that she welcomed the move, and noted that there had been criticisms of the proposed legislation from the West, which were extremely biased. Ip opined that the publication of a white bill for public consultation would not be necessary, and a blue bill was sufficient. Generally speaking, a bureau would publish a white bill if the bill in question is technically complex. It is quite natural for a layman to find technical terms difficult to understand. But if legal practitioners are allowed to have sufficient consultation with clearly drafted articles, a blue bill should not attract incisive criticism. In 2003, the critics raised a storm of controversy in the city by slating the HKSAR government for failing to use a white bill for in-depth consultation on the proposed Article 23 legislation. For example, Amnesty International argued that the public did not know how the legislation would actually be worded.

When the national security bill was introduced in February 2003, the HKSAR government had already made many concessions. But many residents were still skeptical of the bill. Never has the HKSAR government been so heavily criticized. According to Henry Litton, there was no rational basis for a total rejection of the bill (DOJ, Security Brings Prosperity: National Security Law Legal Forum, July 5, 2021). Secretary for Security Chris Tang Ping-keung recently noted that even 20 years ago, foreign forces had played a role in the campaign against Article 23 legislation.

The Hong Kong Bar Association said recently that it hopes the legislation could balance safeguarding national security and human rights. It called for sufficient consultation with clearly drafted articles that would allow the public to better understand the proposed legislation. We agree with the Bar Association. The professional assessment of the legislation by the Bar Association and the Law Society of Hong Kong is vital to the public’s understanding of the legal implications of the drafted articles.

We are optimistic that the lawmakers and the public understand that the implementation of Article 23 is an absolute necessity, aside from being a constitutional duty of the HKSAR. After the 2019 black-clad riots, more and more Hong Kong residents understand the importance of safeguarding national security. Moreover, the promulgation of the NSL has offered residents a first glimpse of the indispensable role played by national security laws in restoring order and maintaining stability in the city. The promotion of national security education has also created a more favorable environment for the implementation of Article 23 legislation. 

Pang Yan-lun is a solicitor and Greater Bay Area legal affairs co-director of the Chinese Dream Think Tank.

Kacee Ting Wong is a barrister, a part-time researcher of Shenzhen University Hong Kong and the Macao Basic Law Research Center, chairman of the Chinese Dream Think Tank, and a district councilor.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.