No one has expressed their opposition to proposed security legislation, top Hong Kong government officials have said, however, concerns over the scope of certain offences have been raised since the public consultation period was launched last Tuesday, they added.
“We’ve heard diverse opinions, mostly showing support of the legislation of Article 23,” security chief Chris Tang said to reporters in Cantonese on Tuesday afternoon, adding that authorities had held 10 seminars so far to introduce the legislation to people from diverse sectors.
“We haven’t heard anyone expressing opposition to this legislation,” justice minister Paul Lam added in Cantonese.
Article 23 of the Basic Law stipulates that the government shall enact laws on its own to safeguard national security. The enactment of such security legislation failed in 2003 following mass protests, and no effort was again made to pass it until after Beijing imposed a separate security law in 2020. Pro-democracy advocates fear it could have a negative effect on civil liberties but the authorities say there is a constitutional duty to ratify it.
Tang and Lam were addressing the media after holding a closed-door seminar with Chief Executive John Lee and over 100 diplomats and representatives from foreign and local chambers of commerce.
Lam said the contents of that meeting were “confidential” and refused to disclose further details.
Tang said, in general, people who had participated in the 10 seminars were concerned about two of the legislation’s proposed offences: “theft of state secrets” and “external interference.”
Officials had taken the time to explain the definition and scope of both proposed offences, Tang said.
“After listening to our explanation, seminar attendees felt [the proposed offences] were clear. [They understood that the legislation] will not have an impact on businesses or the general public, only those who want to endanger national security,” Tang said.
The government introduced 110-page consultation paper for the legislation of a security law as stated in Article 23 last Tuesday, marking the beginning of consultation period that runs until February 28 and spans the Lunar New Year holiday.
According to that document, the proposed, homegrown security legislation will cover five types of offences: treason, insurrection, theft of state secrets and espionage, sabotage endangering national security, and external interference.
The definition of “state secrets” provided in the paper was largely in line with mainland Chinese legislation, while five new offences were listed, including “external interference.”
According to the consultation paper, the crime of external interference targets acts “with intent to bring about an interference effect, collaborating with an external force” to interfere in elections, forming or executing government policies, or any conduct “prejudicing the relationship” between Hong Kong and Beijing.
‘Genuine concerns of citizens’
Jasper Tsang, a pro-establishment politician and former head of Hong Kong’s legislature, wrote in Ming Pao on Tuesday that while there was bound to be criticism over the enactment of legislation under Article 23 from “local and foreign hostile forces,” the government should be patient when responding the “concerns and worries” of the general public.
“To ensure smooth legislation and gain sincere support from the general public, the government must differentiate between hostile attacks and the genuine concerns of citizens. Hostile speech should be strongly refuted, while the questions and concerns of citizens should be patiently addressed, and constructive criticism should be seen as an opportunity for improvement,” Tsang wrote.
“[The government] should not adopt a confrontational attitude to supress all negative comments,” Tsang said.
The pro-establishment politician added that the proposed offence of theft of state secrets had aroused the most public discussion over the past week.
Tsang also said explanations offered by government officials had not helped alleviate the concerns of journalists.
“The key question is: Who determines whether the disclosure of certain information is ‘reasonably likely to endanger national security’? When it comes to interpreting ‘national security,'”‘ who holds the ultimate authority?” Tsang asked.
Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team
