Next Hong Kong chief executive must implement Article 23 national security laws without delay
Grenville Cross says Beijing’s faith in leaving national security legislation up to the city has been misplaced and the next leader must make this a priority, to avert serious consequences
However, almost five years on, and nearly two decades after reunification, Hong Kong has still not, as the Basic Law requires, implemented the national security laws. This is a significant failure, with potentially serious consequences.
The central authorities have placed great faith in Hong Kong by allowing it, in Article 23’s words, to “enact laws on its own” for national security. In most places, national security legislation is dealt with through national parliaments, and not left to regional legislatures.
Of course, China could simply have extended its own national security law to Hong Kong but trusted the city to deal with this within a reasonable time. Its faith, unfortunately, has been misplaced.
While this might suit some people, it makes a mockery of Hong Kong’s constitutional obligations to the rest of China.
Don’t fear Article 23: Elsie Leung
For Hong Kong, a national security law under Article 23 would be the lesser of two evils
Although the mainland’s new security law does not apply to Hong Kong, this could easily change. If Hong Kong continues to shirk its duty under Article 23, there must be a real possibility that the hardliners in the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress will gain the upper hand, and impose it on Hong Kong.
Regina Ip revives divisive issues, including Article 23, as she enters Hong Kong chief executive race
To allay public concerns, however, the new security laws must be narrowly drawn, and respectful of human rights guarantees. The whole emphasis should be on proscribing violence, disorder or illegality as a means to an end, as already reflected in our current treason and sedition laws.
The new secession law must, therefore, be construed in terms of withdrawing a part of China by force or serious criminal means, or engaging in war. Subversion should be defined as disestablishing, intimidating or overthrowing the central government by using force or other serious criminal means.
Interpretation on Hong Kong independence is unnecessary, former justice minister Elsie Leung says
Since 1997, the central authorities have done much to uphold the Basic Law, thereby ensuring the success of “one country, two systems”, and for this we must be grateful.
Hong Kong, for its part, must now demonstrate its own bona fides. If Article 23 is not enacted, then, quite apart from the Annex III danger, the prospects of a “through-train” in 2047, when the Basic Law’s “50 years unchanged” expires, will be significantly diminished.
Grenville Cross SC is a criminal justice analyst