Although the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region's national security laws were enacted in, respectively, 2020 and 2024, national security remains a work in progress. It requires ongoing review, and nobody can responsibly claim "job done". As discussed by experts on Tuesday at a seminar organized by an influential think tank, the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macao Studies (the seminar), new threats are constantly emerging, while old ones can mutate.

Therefore, everybody should remain on full alert. Whenever deficiencies appear in the city’s protective mechanisms, they must be redressed in the best interests of the HKSAR. After all, as the white paper issued by the State Council Information Office in February explained, security is the foundation of social stability and the safeguard of people's well-being.

In this context, the Hong Kong SAR National Security Law (2020) not only imposes an obligation upon the HKSAR to "strengthen its work on safeguarding national security and prevention of terrorist activities" (Art.9), but also requires its Committee for Safeguarding National Security, chaired by the chief executive, to advance "the development of the legal system and enforcement mechanisms of the Region for safeguarding national security" (Art.14(2)).

In consequence, the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance (2024, s.110) empowers the Chief Executive in Council to make subsidiary legislation. This is "for the needs of safeguarding national security and the better carrying into effect" of the SNSO, the NSL and the NPCSC's Interpretation of the NSL's Articles 14 and 47 (which clarified the admissibility of overseas lawyers in national security trials).

Whereas one item of subsidiary legislation last year concerned the operations of the Office for Safeguarding National Security of the Central People’s Government in the HKSAR, another last month created a classification mechanism for national security cases.

Thus, when he addressed the seminar, Han Dayuan, the think tank's vice-president and a Renmin University professor, stressed the utility of subsidiary legislation, which offered "flexibility and specificity". It could "provide the necessary legal regulation in light of the development of practice", by which he presumably meant that as lessons were learned so subsidiary legislation came into its own.  

As the experts noted, a striking feature of the national security laws is the restraint with which they have been applied. By March 1, for example, only 206 individuals and five companies had been prosecuted for offenses related to national security since 2020. This was a world away from the “nightmare scenarios” of the foreign propagandists, who delight in claiming that thousands of people have faced persecution under the "draconian" and "sweeping" national security legislation.

Moreover, both the NSL and the SNSO prioritize human rights. In both laws, the need for human rights to be respected in their application is stressed, with each emphasizing the importance of protecting the fair trial guarantees embodied in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). By contrast, the national security laws of other common-law jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom's National Security Act (2023), on which the SNSO was partly modeled, say nothing about human rights protections, let alone the ICCPR.

This was exactly why the white paper highlighted the "sound provisions on the protection of human rights and freedoms enjoyed by all Hong Kong's residents in accordance with the Basic Law and the relevant provisions of the international covenants applicable to Hong Kong."

The effect of those protections was, for example, apparent to anybody who followed the recent national security trial of the Apple Daily founder, Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, which Han Dayuan described as "an example of transparency and fairness".

Lai enjoyed the presumption of innocence, was represented by a top legal team, and was able to challenge the prosecution witnesses and give evidence himself. He was only convicted after his guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and his decision not to appeal undoubtedly reflected his appreciation of the strength of the evidence against him (by contrast, he recently succeeded in having two other convictions, one for organizing an unauthorized assembly and the other for fraud, overturned by the Court of Appeal).

When Wang Zhenmin, Dean of the Tsinghua University National Institute of Governance and former director general of the Security Department of the State Council's Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office (HKMAO), addressed the seminar, he elaborated upon these themes. He pointed out that the Hong Kong national security legislation is “milder” than its counterparts in the United Kingdom, the United States and Singapore, and avoided "over-securitization while protecting rights and freedoms". However, national security was "a long process”, particularly at a time of global volatility. Although the HKSAR had improved its safety, “we cannot put a full stop on it".

The same point was stressed by the think tank's president, Deng Zhonghua, a former HKMAO deputy director. He said, "The situation in safeguarding national security in Hong Kong remains severe and complex, and the struggle is intense." The existential threats, said Deng, included smears, sanctions against the HKSAR, fugitives abroad engaging in activities that endangered national security, and "soft resistance" in public affairs locally, which was spot-on.

The universal consensus, therefore, is that national security is never complete. Woe betides any place that fails to stay ahead of the game, or at the very least to keep abreast of developments.

As the white paper noted, common law countries continuously refine their legal systems in response to evolving national security challenges. Although the HKSAR's national security laws have restored its stability and prosperity after a traumatic experience, their ongoing review must be seen as integral to the success of the "one country, two systems" policy.

The author is a senior counsel and law professor, and was previously the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Hong Kong SAR.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.