No envoys, business chambers opposed Hong Kong national security law during meetings, minister says

The public consultation session ends on February 28 and the government intends to pass the constitutionally required law, which will sit alongside a similar one imposed by Beijing in 2020, this year.

Secretary for Security Chris Tang Ping-keung said authorities had hosted more than 10 explanatory sessions since last week, and that in those discussions, offences related to state secrets and foreign interference were more of a concern to attendees.

Secretary for Justice Paul Lam Ting-kwok said: “We have not heard anyone telling us that they do not support the legislation of Article 23.

“I think all Hong Kong residents, including our foreign friends, fully understand that Hong Kong has a constitutional responsibility to completely carry out our constitutional responsibility. On this front, everyone is on the same page.

“But on one to two topics, like the secretary of security has said, we understand the public might have a lot of concerns – I would not use the word worries. They had questions about what we proposed and hoped to listen to our explanations.”

Hong Kong’s Article 23 law likely to state maximum penalties for offences: minister

The minister noted that he could not disclose the content of the meetings due to principles of confidentiality but said the discussions were “frank” and “very constructive”.

One of the biggest questions hanging over the proposed bill is whether authorities will allow for a “public interest defence” in cases involving state secrets.

Journalism groups have argued that their work would be hampered without recourse to the defence, as it might be unclear whether reporting on government matters crossed the line.

Lam said countries varied in their approach to a public interest defence in matters of national security and some did not adopt the clause.

“Our consultation paper also mentioned that different countries have their own ways of handling, including some which did not offer such a [defence] clause,” he said. “We hope eventually our law will be reasonably clear. We will listen to more opinions during the consultation period.”

Governments that included such an exemption would consider different reasons with a high threshold such as whether there was enormous public interest or urgency involved, Lam added.

Shedding further light on the nature of the discussions, security minister Tang added that officials spent time explaining the offenses related to state secrets and external inference and the scope of the terms.

“The attendees at our meetings said they had a clear understanding after our explanation,” he said.

“They clearly understand that the legislation of Article 23 will not affect average businesspeople, even more so the general public, but only those who want to endanger our national security.”

The proposed legislation targets t­reason, insurrection, sabotage, foreign interference, theft of state secrets and espionage.

No need for Hong Kong academics to worry about interference offence: officials

Authorities failed in their first attempt to pass the legislation in 2003 after half a million residents took to the streets in protest, fearing the law would erode their rights.

The state Xinhua News Agency, meanwhile, published a second commentary on Article 23 legislation within a week, highlighting three “advantages” the law would bring to Hong Kong.

It noted that the completion of the domestic national security legislation would further strengthen the foundation of the “one country, two systems” governing principle, as its “highest rationale” was to firmly safeguard national sovereignty, security and development interests.

The law would also provide a good environment for the further progress of the economy and people’s livelihoods, as well as improve Hong Kong’s business environment and allow the city to make better use of its unique advantages, the commentary said.

It noted renowned international financial centres such as New York, London, Tokyo and Singapore had established – and were still establishing – strict regulations to safeguard national security.

“Has this affected their status as an international financial centre? … [Some people] always put Hong Kong’s completion of Article 23 legislation in opposition to the consolidation and improvement of its status as an international financial centre,” it said.

“Those alarmist statements are either based on ignorance or are deliberately misleading or even instigating.”

Separately, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin expressed Beijing’s strong dissatisfaction and resolute opposition to “blatant collusion” between high-ranking US officials and four Hong Kong fugitives.

UK, US security laws referenced for Hong Kong’s Article 23 are ‘overbroad’

US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Daniel Kritenbrink met four Hong Kong opposition activists, Anna Kwok Fung-yee, Elmer Yuan Gong-yi, Frances Hui Wing-ting and Joey Siu Nam, earlier on Monday.

Kritenbrink then wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter, that he was honoured to meet “courageous advocates for Hong Kong’s democracy and human rights who’ve been unjustly targeted for exercising their fundamental freedoms”.

But Wang vowed that any attempt to interfere in Hong Kong affairs and undermine the city’s rule of law would be resolutely countered by Beijing.

“Regarding the fugitives that are anti-China and anti-Hong Kong and suspected of endangering national security, the Hong Kong police have issued warrants for them in accordance with the law,” he said.

Additional reporting by Lilian Cheng