Criminal laws sometimes lose their effectiveness over time and must be regularly reviewed. If new dangers emerge, or lacunae appear, or laws are no longer fit for purpose, updating is vital. This is as true of national security laws as it is of child safety laws, technology crime laws, or environmental protection laws.

Although Hong Kong is protected by the Hong Kong National Security Law 2020 (NSL) and the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance 2024 (SNSO), it must remain vigilant at all times. It faces continuing threats, both internally and externally, and its defensive mechanisms sometimes require improvement. National security, therefore, should not be seen as a done deal, but rather as unfinished business.  

This is undoubtedly why the NSL, quite apart from directing the enactment of the national security laws identified in the Basic Law (Art 7), requires the region to “strengthen its work on safeguarding national security and prevention of terrorist activities” (Art 9).

On June 21, when the director of the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office, Xia Baolong, addressed the forum to mark the fifth anniversary of the NSL’s enactment at the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre, he emphasized that, when it comes to national security, there could be no resting on laurels. While stressing that the NSL was enacted “for the good of Hong Kong”, he warned against assuming “everything is well”.

Xia explained that dangers remained, and that it was only through national security that Hong Kong could guard against foreign forces. Ill-intentioned elements also remained active in the city, hatching plots in the form of “soft resistance” and smearing the NSL.

The same theme was taken up by Dong Jingwei, director of the Office for Safeguarding National Security of the Central People’s Government in the HKSAR (OSNS). He noted that the threats posed to Hong Kong SAR and China by external forces were unceasing and had to be identified. He said, “We should continue to deepen reform for the development of safety and complete Hong Kong’s national security infrastructure.”

One example of what Dong had in mind was undoubtedly the subsidiary legislation designed to facilitate the work of the OSNS. It was gazetted on May 13 and will help address the threats arising from an increasingly complex geopolitical situation.

Although some of China’s antagonists squeal whenever the Hong Kong SAR’s national security arrangements are enhanced (as they did when the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress issued an interpretation on the admission of overseas lawyers in national security cases in 2022), this is merely grandstanding. What they resent is the difficulty they now face in conducting spying and intelligence activities in Hong Kong and recruiting agents, although nobody should suppose they have entirely given up. Only time will tell if the existing protective mechanisms are sufficiently comprehensive to neutralize all the dangers posed.  

All countries continually review their national security arrangements and adjust them as necessary. Although the United Kingdom is a prime example of this, places like Australia, Canada and the United States have also churned out new national security laws, often at breakneck speed. They address issues as diverse as cybersecurity, espionage and foreign influence, covert surveillance, terrorism and aviation security, and many of their laws have only recently been enacted (given presumably the inadequacy of their previous arrangements). 

Criminal laws sometimes lose their effectiveness over time and must be regularly reviewed. If new dangers emerge, or lacunae appear, or laws are no longer fit for purpose, updating is vital. This is as true of national security laws as it is of child safety laws, technology crime laws, or environmental protection laws

In the UK, for example, the National Security and Investment Act was enacted on Jan 4, 2022, introducing greater controls of financial transactions with national security implications. Barely a year later, the National Security Act 2023 (NSA) became law, providing the authorities with new powers to combat espionage, sabotage, and interference in the political system (coincidentally, it helped guide the drafting of the SNSO in 2024). The NSA repealed the Official Secrets Acts of 1911, 1920 and 1939, which were considered to have passed their sell-by dates.

However, the UK’s record concerning terrorist legislation is extraordinary. Between 2000 and 2025, it enacted no less than 15 terrorism acts. Each one built on the first law in the series, the Terrorism Act 2000, which defined terrorism for the first time, increased police powers to question and detain terrorist suspects and extended the number of proscribed terrorist organizations.

Thereafter, for example, the Terrorism Act 2006 enabled the police to detain suspects without charge for 28 days, and the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 allowed them to carry on questioning suspects after charging and extended extraterritorial jurisdiction to offenses committed elsewhere. Whereas the Justice and Security Act 2013 regulated the operations of the intelligence agencies, the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 clamped down on internet usage with national security implications. The latest law, the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act (known as “Martyn’s Law”), was enacted on April 3, and strengthened security on public premises and at public events.

Whenever national security is at stake, the landscape can change significantly in a short time. This is as true of Hong Kong as it is of the UK and other places. This was undoubtedly why, when the SNSO was enacted last year, in order to give effect to the requirements of the Basic Law’s national security legislation (Art 23), it contained measures outside the scope of Art 23.

After the Basic Law was enacted in 1990, new threats emerged in Hong Kong, largely unforeseen by its drafters. This was why additional offenses had to be incorporated into the SNSO, including insurrection, sabotage, and the use of technology to endanger national security. The need for these extra laws only became apparent after the insurrection broke out in 2019-20.    

Although it is unlikely ever to happen in Hong Kong, woe betide any jurisdiction that lets its guard down. After attempts were made to destroy the “one country, two systems” policy with black-clad violence, the city knows only too well that it must remain ahead of the game. If this necessitates the type of regular updating favored by the UK, then so be it.

The author is a senior counsel and law professor, and was previously the director of public prosecutions of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. 

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.