Hong Kong’s legislature has passed a new security law, which the government claims is necessary for maintaining stability, while critics view it as a significant blow to the city’s once cherished freedoms.
The passage of Article 23 comes after a 20-year process, allowing for trials to be conducted behind closed doors, among other provisions. Initially proposed two decades ago, the legislation sparked mass protests, but this time, there was little public opposition, signaling a shift in the city’s dynamics, particularly since Beijing imposed a stringent national security law following the 2019 protests.
Described as an “historic moment” by Hong Kong’s leader, Chief Executive John Lee, Article 23 introduces numerous new crimes, including sabotage, sedition, espionage, and disclosing state secrets, with severe penalties, including life imprisonment, for the most serious offenses such as treason and insurrection.
Article 23 forms part of Hong Kong’s Basic Law, which outlines the governance framework following the city’s handover from Britain to China in 1997. Despite being a controversial aspect of the Basic Law, Article 23 had not been enacted until now, partly due to significant opposition when first proposed in 2003.
The resurgence of Article 23 follows the implementation of a draconian national security law in 2020, which has stifled dissent and prompted an exodus of residents from Hong Kong. The recent surge in emigration is attributed to declining trust in the legal system and political freedoms, according to research.
Critics, including pro-democracy activists and human rights advocates, view Article 23 as further erosion of Hong Kong’s promised freedoms. Australian lawyer Kevin Yam, subject to charges of collusion under the new law, expressed dismay, describing it as a continuation of “lawfare.”
However, authorities argue that Article 23 is necessary to address legal loopholes and enhance security measures, particularly concerning espionage and foreign agents.
The passage of Article 23 has drawn mixed reactions. While Hong Kong’s government hails it as fulfilling a constitutional duty and protecting national security, critics see it as a detrimental development. Former legislator Ted Hui, now residing in Adelaide, labeled it the “final nail in the coffin” for the city, predicting a further crackdown on dissent and democracy.
Beijing has praised Hong Kong’s government for passing the law, stating that it will enhance security and prosperity in the city while protecting its democratic freedoms. However, critics remain concerned about the implications of Article 23 for Hong Kong’s future and its status as a global financial center.