That process was shelved the following year after a protest by half a million people. This time, the political environment is very different.

The consultation comes at a critical time as Hong Kong seeks to burnish its credentials as an international city.

National security has been a dominant theme since Beijing’s passing of a sweeping law in 2020, in response to months of civil unrest.

Order was restored long ago and Hong Kong is looking to move on. But it has a constitutional duty to pass the legislation, under Article 23 of the Basic Law. It also needs to update its existing legal framework.

The process must be flawless and the laws put in place precise, with sufficient safeguards to ensure rights are protected and conduct essential to Hong Kong’s way of life continues. Officials should carefully consider the feedback received. There is not much time if, as expected, the legislation is to be passed by the summer.

US concerned over ‘broad and vague’ definitions in Hong Kong security law

The Bar Association, representing Hong Kong’s barristers, submitted a 128-page paper. While generally supporting the legislation, the Bar analysed overseas laws and made constructive suggestions for improving Hong Kong’s proposals.

These include areas in which the legislation needs to be better defined, narrowed and provided with defences or exemptions.

The outdated sedition law requires attention. It was not used for decades but then revived after the passing of the 2020 national security law. The government’s consultation paper suggests amending it and increasing the penalties.

The Bar argues the sedition law should be modernised to bring it into line with other common law jurisdictions. This is long overdue. The legal body suggests narrowing the scope of such offences by including a requirement that offenders have knowledge of “a likelihood that violence, disobedience to the law or breach of the peace may occur”. It also submits that exemptions for the sedition offence be broadened, to ensure there is sufficient space for people to “ventilate their grievances”. These suggestions deserve serious consideration.

The proposed new crime of “external interference” has raised concerns given the importance of Hong Kong’s international links. The government’s suggested definition of “external force” – also relevant for the espionage offence – should be tightened.

According to the Bar, the proposed definition is so wide it could even lead to Hong Kong residents visiting other countries being regarded as “external forces” while there.

One of the most compelling calls, during the consultation, was for a public interest defence for the disclosure of state secrets, which the government says it is willing to consider. It could provide some reassurance to journalists and others whose job is to disclose information in the public interest.

Questions arise about the relationship between the new legislation and other laws. Will the procedural steps included in the 2020 national security law apply? These include an option to dispense with juries and also require judges to be approved by Hong Kong’s leader.

As this is local legislation, the courts should have the power to strike out any parts of the law they rule to be in breach of the Basic Law’s human rights protections. This is an important safeguard and should focus the minds of law drafters and legislators.

Beijing’s top official on the city’s affairs, Xia Baolong, heralded a new era of development for Hong Kong on his recent visit. Hopefully, the passing of the Article 23 laws, after waiting so many years, will mark a shift in the city’s focus away from national security and onto the many other challenges it faces.