That law has transformed Hong Kong. But the obligation to pass national security legislation in specific areas remains. Finally, the day has dawned.

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

Last week, the government released a 110-page consultation paper. It covers treason, insurrection, seditious intention, theft of state secrets, sabotage and external interference. The proposals go beyond those of 2003.

The laws are said by the government to be urgently needed to guard against foreign threats and internal disorder. But they have the potential to restrict the scope for free expression and inhibit Hong Kong’s efforts to promote itself as a vibrant international city.

Consultation papers take many forms. The best are expressed in neutral terms, inviting opinions and offering alternatives. The document issued last week is different. It reads more like a position paper.

It is strewn with the tired rhetoric routinely trotted out by officials. Everything from “black-clad violence” to “colour revolution”, “barbaric” interference and “smearing allegations” is there. This distracts from the proposals themselves.

The 30-day time period, which takes in the Lunar New Year holiday, is far too short, given the significance and complexity of the legislation. It should be extended.

Numerous references are made in the paper to national security laws overseas. Britain’s National Security Act, passed last year, has clearly been an inspiration. British officials might reflect on that when criticising the city’s proposals.

But comparisons with laws elsewhere cannot be taken too far. The context is different and there may be safeguards overseas that do not exist in Hong Kong.

The city’s consultation paper says new state secrets laws must be clearly defined. But the proposals are breathtakingly broad. The areas covered include major policy decisions, economic, social and technological development, and the relationship between Hong Kong and Beijing. It is difficult to imagine anything that does not fall within these cavernous categories.

Material will only be considered a state secret if its disclosure “would likely endanger national security”. Offenders must know or have reasonable grounds for believing the information concerned is a state secret. But these terms are open to wide interpretations.

Apple Daily series reflected Lai’s views on Hong Kong national security law: court

The definition must be crystal clear. Otherwise the new law will have a chilling effect on journalists, academics and business analysts, among others.

A public interest defence would help ease concerns. It is good to see the government is open to this. Why is it not mentioned in the consultation paper? Such a defence was belatedly added to the 2003 proposals in a last-ditch bid to win over the public.

The proposals for an external interference law are also expressed in broad terms and have the potential to deter Hong Kong people from engaging with their counterparts overseas.

Senior officials have offered reassurance that the law on state secrets will only apply if certain conditions are met and the crime of external interference will not cover ordinary exchanges with overseas organisations. Ultimately, the impact of the legislation will depend on the wording of the law.

The consultation is, therefore, very important. In 2003, the proposals were reviewed three times, with 51 amendments. The government should be in listening mode.

This time, given Hong Kong’s changed political environment, there are unlikely to be protests. But lessons from the past should be learned. Hong Kong people must be given adequate time, space and confidence to freely express their views on the proposals.

Only by passing laws which are clearly defined and narrow in scope, with effective safeguards to protect human rights, will Hong Kong finally bring this long-running controversy to an end.