“The geopolitics has become increasingly complex, and national security risks remain imminent … the Hong Kong government must complete the legislative work as soon as possible to plug the national security loopholes,” Secretary for Security Chris Tang Ping-keung told lawmakers.

“The earlier we complete the legislative work, the sooner we can guard against national security risks.”

Financial Secretary Paul Chan Mo-po told a forum organised by the Post that the fast-tracked legislation would not undermine investor confidence in Hong Kong.

“Of course, [it is] not affecting the attractiveness and competitiveness of Hong Kong … Let’s do it as quickly as possible. And then let’s move on, concentrate our efforts in working on the economy and developing,” he said.

Hong Kong adds public interest defence for state secret crimes to Article 23 bill

“This is a historic moment, I have been waiting for the legislation for more than 20 years since it failed the last time,” said veteran lawmaker Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee, who was the security minister when an earlier version of the bill had to be shelved in the face of mass opposition in 2003.

The Safeguarding National Security Bill, which Hong Kong is constitutionally obliged to enact under Article 23 of the Basic Law, also rewrites a number of existing ordinances and has been made public just nine days after the end of a one-month public consultation exercise.

Authorities say there has been “overwhelming public support” for the legislation, citing 98.6 per cent of more than 13,000 submissions received during the consultation.

Lawmakers who had not finished with questions on the consultation paper during earlier panel meetings were advised to raise their concerns at the bills committee meetings. Deviating from usual practice, Legco will conduct extra full-day sessions of the committee on Saturdays and Sundays to get the job done.

Legco president Andrew Leung Kwan-yuen said lawmakers were not working under a deadline, but shared the common goal that it should be done as soon as possible.

Much of the 212-page bill made public on Friday was similar to the content of the consultation document issued on January 30, but the full draft also spelled out penalties and specified in greater detail the five types of offences: treason; insurrection, incitement to mutiny and disaffection, and acts with seditious intention; sabotage; external interference; and theft of state secrets and espionage.

The four offences that can lead to life imprisonment are treason, insurrection, inciting members of the Chinese armed forces to mutiny, and colluding with external forces to damage public infrastructure – the last crime can also apply to offenders based outside Hong Kong.

10 things you will want to learn about Hong Kong’s new Article 23 legislation

The maximum penalty for people convicted under Hong Kong’s colonial-era sedition law has been significantly increased from the current two years to seven years behind bars. Like the other listed crimes, higher penalties – ranging from two to five years more – will be applicable if collusion with external forces is involved.

For other offences, maximum penalties range from three months for small offences – such as being careless with confidential information – to 14 years of jail time for external interference, and 20 years for espionage. Relevant acts include using unmanned devices such as drones to approach, inspect, enter or access a prohibited venue.

Of the 39 offences listed in the bill, 18 will have an extraterritorial effect to a varying extent targeting Hong Kong residents who are Chinese citizens. For example, a group of people who have “a place of business in Hong Kong” can be charged with the unlawful disclosure of state secrets even if the offence is committed outside the city.

The initial detention period for those accused of national security offences will be extended to up to 14 days from the current two days with the permission of the courts.

Security chief Tang on Friday stressed that “innocent people will not be brought to justice by mistake”, citing the requirement to prove criminal intent.

A significant piece of public feedback that the bill has taken on board is the inclusion of a public interest defence, named as “specified disclosure”, for those charged with the unlawful acquisition, possession or disclosure of state secrets.

But the burden of proof will rest on the defendants, who will be subject to conditions such as whether any disclosure is made under an emergency. The disclosure must concern circumstances under which the government’s function is seriously affected, or there is a serious threat to public order, safety or health.

Stiffer penalties for sedition under new Hong Kong Article 23 bill

Some of the definitions of crimes, including “state secrets” and “external force”, are almost identical to those laid out in the consultation paper, despite professional and legal groups raising concerns that the terms are too broad and vague.

The term “state secrets” covers seven types of secrets that do not necessarily have to be about “national” issues directly pertaining to mainland China or the central government. Information on the economic or social development of Hong Kong can be deemed of national interest and therefore constitute a “state secret” if an unauthorised disclosure is considered a risk to national security.

The new legislation is meant to work in tandem with the national security law that Beijing imposed in 2020 to end the anti-government protest chaos of 2019, and to follow most of its procedures such as allowing only specifically appointed judges to handle relevant cases. The city’s leader may issue a certificate to confirm whether any material involves state secrets.

Individuals, political parties outside Hong Kong, and international organisations can be identified as “external forces”, but the government said in a brief to Legco that solely meeting the definition would not make them liable to commit an offence unless they had the intent to interfere with government, court or legislature decisions.

While supporting the bill overall, lawmaker Ip, who is also a top adviser to the government, expressed disappointment over what she described as some of the “poor and problematic drafting” regarding “external forces”.

An organisation located in another country should not be counted as an “international organisation”, but simply as a foreign organisation, she argued, adding that territories should also be included in the definition, in addition to “countries, regions or places”.

All you need to know about Hong Kong’s domestic security law

The European Union raised “grave concerns” over some of the definitions and provisions in the bill.

“We can already note that the proposed bill covers an even wider range of offences than previously disclosed to the public, including sweeping stipulations on external interference and significantly hardened provisions on sentencing,” a spokesman told the Post.

“The legislation risks exacerbating the erosion of fundamental freedoms in Hong Kong brought about, in particular, by the 2020 national security law. A bill of such far-reaching consequences requires sufficient time to allow for thorough scrutiny by both the legislature and the public.”

The British consulate in Hong Kong also suggested that the “legislation should align with international standards and uphold basic rights and freedoms”, as it called for the government to allow more time for “proper legislative scrutiny”.