“Concerns” about the upcoming Article 23 legislation has been raised by Western media and some Western politicians ever since Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu pledged, in his Policy Address delivered in October last year, to complete the legislative process within 2024.

The official launch of the Article 23 legislative process, with the public consultation for the legislation kicking off on Tuesday, in all likelihood heralded a smear campaign against the legislation - if experiences with the previous failed attempt to legislate in 2003 and the promulgation of the National Security Law for Hong Kong (NSL) are any guide: The Article 23 legislation attempt in 2003 was thwarted by strong opposition fueled by a fierce smear campaign; the NSL is still the target of an on-going smear campaign more than three years into its implementation.

This despite the fact that threats to China’s national security were so palpable, as evidenced by the months-long riots in 2019-20, which were in fact part of a “color revolution”; and that the NSL has served its intended purpose of criminalizing and deterring a tiny minority of people who have threatened or intend to undermine China’s national security.    

Safeguarding national security is both a right and a responsibility of a sovereign state. Most countries - if not all - have had national security laws in place, including countries that have attacked the promulgation of the NSL. Take the United States for example. Being the world's only superpower, the US is supposed to be the country that is least concerned about other countries endangering its national security. Yet, it is one of the countries that have the most national security laws in place, with at least 21 laws related to national security, including the Sedition Act, the Espionage Act, the Alien Enemies Act, the National Security Act of 1947, the Central Intelligence Agency Act, the Protecting America from Spies Act, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Economic Espionage Act and the Homeland Security Act. The United Kingdom, meanwhile, passed its new National Security Act last year, despite that it had already had at least a dozen of laws linked to national security in place. Other members of the Five Eye alliance also protect their own national security with several relevant laws: Canada with at least nine laws, Australia with at least four, and New Zealand with at least two.

The accusations hurled by Western mainstream media and Western politicians at the NSL and their “concerns” about Article 23 legislation have exhibited their sheer hypocrisy and double standards. Obviously, they have either been driven by ideological bias or are intended to promote the raging geopolitical strategy against China, and conceivably do not sell well outside the Washington-dominated circle.

“Freedoms” and “rights” have been the pet phrases invariably cited by the critics whenever they attacked Hong Kong’s efforts to safeguard national security, including the implementation of the NSL. The fact is, individual rights and freedoms are not absolute and may be restricted by legislation in cases of threats to national security, public order and public health, as declared in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). This is the fundamental principle based on which national security laws, as well as other laws, have been drafted around the world. Without imposing appropriate restrictions on acts that are harmful to the nation or other individuals, how could any law be effective and useful? It is self-deceiving for Western critics to assume that national security laws in force in their own countries do not restrict certain acts or freedoms. The fact is, many laws in Western countries, such as those in the UK and the US, are much more draconian and cover wider scopes than the NSL in force in Hong Kong. For example, the UK’s National Security Act 2023 allows the police to make warrantless arrests and detain suspects for up to 14 days without charge.

Contrary to the critics’ allegations, the NSL respects and protects human rights. Article 4 of the law clearly stipulates, “The rights and freedoms, including the freedoms of speech, of the press, of publication, of association, of assembly, of procession and of demonstration…shall be protected in accordance with the law.”

There is no reason to assume that Article 23 legislation will compromise any of these rights and freedoms in any way as both the NSL and Article 23 legislation are intended to safeguard China’s national security while helping to maintain the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong.

Indeed, the HKSAR government has no reason to ruin the city's rule of law, human rights and freedoms, as Secretary for Justice Paul Lam Ting-kwok noted, who said when explain Article 23 legislation: "A balance would be struck between safeguarding national security and protection of human rights and freedoms. There won't be irrational restrictions." 

Lam’s reassurance is heartening, and can deflect any attempt to stoke fears over Article 23 legislation.

The author is a current affairs commentator.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.