Asia-PacificAnalysis

Hong Kong security law was inevitable, but speed of its passing was a surprise

Truncated timetable meant Washington had no time to prepare packages of sanctions to threaten legislators during debate

Chief executive John Lee speaking to the media in the Legislative Council building after the passing of the Article 23 National Security Law in Hong Kong. Photograph: Peter Parks/AFP via Getty Images

Denis Staunton's face
Denis Staunton in Beijing
Tue Mar 19 2024 - 18:10

The passage of Hong Kong’s new national security law was long expected and the unanimous vote in the “all-patriot” Legislative Council was no great surprise. Article 23 of the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s quasi-constitution, requires the enactment of a such a law and after the 2020 crackdown on political opposition, the independent media and civil society, it was inevitable.

The biggest surprise was the speed with which the Hong Kong authorities, led by chief executive John Lee, pushed the legislation through. After just four weeks for public consultation, legislators finished scrutinising the 181-clause bill in six days, spent a day considering amendments and skipped a statutory 12-day notice period to go through its final stages in one day.

The law redefines sedition so that it does not have to involve incitement to violence and expands the definition of state secrets, as well as introducing very harsh sentences for some offences. Businesses, journalists’ groups and foreign governments all expressed concerns about the implications of the law for what is left of Hong Kong’s independent media and civil society.

Lee’s official justification for fast-tracking the legislation was that the external threats to Hong Kong’s national security were so urgent that there was no time to waste. More plausible was Beijing’s suggestion that, with their constitutional duty on national security done, Hong Kong’s lawmakers could now focus on strengthening the economy.

READ MORE

But moving the legislation through so quickly also had the advantage for its authors of wrong-footing critics abroad, particularly the United States and its European allies. The truncated timetable meant that Washington and other capitals had no time to prepare packages of sanctions with which it could threaten Hong Kong’s legislators during the debate.

[ Hong Kong passes security law aimed at quashing dissent with severe penalties ]

Sanctions could yet come and Tuesday’s vote brought immediate and bipartisan condemnation from Capitol Hill and from overseas groups that campaign for civil liberties in Hong Kong. But foreign governments have been cautious, partly because they do not wish to be seen to interfere in a legislative process that was made in Hong Kong rather than directly imposed from Beijing.

The haste with which the law was introduced may have a price, however, in terms of the already dubious legitimacy of the Legislative Council in a city where most voters used to back pro-democracy candidates until they were banned.

One legislator, Junius Ho, complained during Tuesday’s debate that he was ridiculed when he addressed a group of teachers to explain the contents of the new law. “When I was giving the lecture, these teachers were playing video games, chatting among themselves and sleeping,” he said. “When I am there to train the trainers, they are sleeping, playing video games and even staring at me with disgust.”

LATEST STORIES