Article 23 has long been a hot topic in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region’s history. Back in 2002-03, five years after Hong Kong’s return to China, when the HKSAR government initiated the local legislation of Article 23 of the Basic Law for the first time, no one could have predicted that this aborted legislative move would herald two turbulent decades for the special administrative region.

Lamentably, the attempt to fulfill Hong Kong’s constitutional duty failed because of unfortunate social and political turbulence. Since then, any attempt to enact a national security law, a universally implemented means of protection, became politically sensitive. Whenever the government put the topic on the table for discussion, vocal opposition invariably emerged, followed by an anti-government campaign in some cases.

Almost every time, the government chose to delay the legislative process in exchange for a harmonious social atmosphere. However, it resulted only in an increasingly shaky and hostile social atmosphere.

From the “Occupy Central” movement in 2014, to the Mong Kok riots in 2016, and the extremely violent anti-extradition-bill movement in 2019-20, escalating unrest became a feature of the city. Those upheavals seriously undermined the HKSAR’s prosperity and stability, and also threatened China’s national security.

Our memories are still fresh. No one will forget the shock, anxiety and trauma Hong Kong residents experienced in 2019 and 2020. We, along with people elsewhere who cared about Hong Kong, were stunned and saddened to see the city in peril. No one would have ever thought that one of the world’s safest cities, with a long-standing reputation for its peaceful and orderly way of life, could turn into an inferno overnight.

Imagine what would have happened if the disaster had dragged on much longer. Yes, we might have been trapped in mob rule. The city’s lifelines, including trade, logistics, financial services and aviation, likely would have been paralyzed. Hong Kong would have lost its competitiveness within years.

Instinctively, the people of Hong Kong like to turn to the lawbook for solutions at times of disputes. But that time, we all failed. There was no law in the city for fending off subversion and rampant external forces that exerted an influence on the city’s governance. That was the time when people realized that the national security crisis in Hong Kong was real and that it could be so severe and destructive. Moreover, some started to think that Hong Kong had missed taking important action 20 years earlier.

Fortunately, Hong Kong was not facing that terrible moment alone. It was the central government that made the tough decision to put the National Security Law for Hong Kong in place and end the chaos, so that Hong Kong could take a deep breath and restore law and order.

It was an emergency rescue. Hong Kong, with its high degree of autonomy, had to take the responsibility itself. The NSL targets only secession, subversion, terrorist activities, and collusion with external forces. That means other critical areas prescribed in Article 23, including treason, sedition, and theft of State secrets, are still missing. It is the city’s duty and in the city’s interest to enact comprehensive legislation to fill the loopholes as soon as possible.

Twenty years is a long time — long enough for us to regret the lost years. Twenty years is also a short time — short enough for us to recall our naive understanding of the very serious topic of national security. If Article 23 legislation had been completed at that time, the city would have had a basic consensus and be able to fully focus on developmental matters.

Local opinion polls last year made it clear that a greater proportion of residents supported swift completion of Article 23 legislation once and for all, compared with those of 2003. The message is clear: We cannot afford to repeat the mistakes. This may be an opportune time for Hong Kong to make this breakthrough, and it is delightful for all those who love Hong Kong to see that the government is acting decisively.

It is important to note that as a city that respects the rule of law, Hong Kong must always be prudent and professional in proceeding with this important legislation, despite a consensus emerging in society on the need for early legislation. We should always welcome residents, social organizations and law practitioners voicing their concerns and suggestions. We should cherish them and turn the bill for Article 23 legislation into a comprehensive and balanced law to reassure the international community that the city’s core values remain unchanged.

Ever since Hong Kong returned to China, life in the city has been like driving a fancy car without having the seat belts fastened. The city can still go very far and drive fast, but has always been on tenterhooks. Therefore, by fulfilling this historical mission now, we have finally buckled up. Driving now means much fewer risks, and we may go even faster without any distractions. And likewise, only with such a solid foundation can Hong Kong’s prosperity and stability be secured.

The author is a member of the Hunan Province Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference and vice-chairman of the Hong Kong Y Elites Association.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.