[Updated] Unilateral Introduction of National Security Legislation Shows ‘Total Disregard’ for Hong Kong Autonomy and Fundamental Rights

National security legislation - tied to Article 23 of Hong Kong’s Basic Law - has historically been one of the controversial issues in Hong Kong politics. On 1 July 2003, at least 500,000 people marched from Victoria Park to the Government of Hong Kong’s Central Offices. The catalyst was national security legislation, under Article 23, which contained certain draconian provisions and could have been used by the government to curtail freedom of speech and other civil liberties.

The protest led to the legislation being shelved in 2003, but today the National People’s Congress has announced that national security legislation is set to be introduced to Hong Kong via Annex III of the Basic Law.

Johnny Patterson, Director of Hong Kong Watch, said:

“This law will introduce a range of vague and draconian charges to Hong Kong law including ‘subversion’, ‘secession’, and ‘colluding with foreign political forces’. Of course, all countries have a duty to protect their own national security, but not at the expense of fundamental rights and freedoms. This law flies in the face of the human rights commitments Hong Kong has made as a signatory of the ICCPR and comes at a time when UN Human Rights Experts are already calling for the Hong Kong Government to reform its anti-sedition and anti-terror laws to meet international standards.”

Patterson continued: “ The implications of this legislation are potentially profound. Will NGOs and charities like Amnesty International and Hong Kong Watch become illegal? Will Chris Patten and foreign journalists speaking at the FCC become a crime? Will the political opposition be accused of subversion? A broad-brush interpretation of this law would signal the end of Hong Kong as we know it.”

The Sino-British Joint Declaration states that the Hong Kong government is to be granted a “high degree of autonomy” on all matters aside from defence and diplomacy. The Hong Kong Basic Law states that national security legislation of this type will be enacted by the Hong Kong government 'on its own'.

The decision to use Annex III of the Hong Kong Basic Law for Beijing to directly legislate national security legislation is therefore an unprecedented and highly controversial intervention.

Patterson continued: “Beijing’s decision to unilaterally impose legislation is an unprecedented assault on Hong Kong’s autonomy. The Chinese authorities know that this is the most controversial law in Hong Kong’s history. Their decision shows a total disregard for the spirit and the terms of the original treaty. Any international government that claims to stand for freedom, democracy, and the rule of law, cannot allow such a flagrant breach of this international treaty to stand.”

Lord Patten of Barnes, the last governor of Hong Kong, said:

“This is a comprehensive assault on the city’s autonomy, rule of law, and fundamental freedoms. At best, the integrity of one-country, two-systems hangs by thread. Unless the Chinese Communist regime sees sense, this will be hugely damaging to Hong Kong’s international reputation and to the prosperity of a great city. Moreover, it will underline something which more and more people understand: that Chinese Communism is not to be trusted on anything.”

In-depth: In 2018, Hong Kong Watch published a report examining the city’s national security legislation and arguing that all laws in Hong Kong must comply fully with the ICCPR.

Photo: Protest against Article 23 on July 1, 2003 (Stand News)