Opinion | Article 23: when treason laws still refer to the queen, a national security law update is way overdue

Although some people have queried the renewed talk of enacting the national security laws required by the Basic Law (Article 23), the reason is there for all to see. The national security law, enacted last year, requires Hong Kong to “complete, as early as possible, legislation for safeguarding national security as stipulated in the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and shall refine relevant laws”.

Whereas the national security law includes some crimes contained in Article 23, it does not purport to be comprehensive. In enacting it, China’s top legislative body, the National People’s Congress (NPC) Standing Committee, remained respectful of the Basic Law, which entrusted Hong Kong, on its behalf, to enact national security legislation “on its own”. This, however, proved impossible, as the fiasco in 2003 showed.

Given the gravity of the anti-government protests which erupted in 2019, the NPC Standing Committee had no choice but to step in. Nonetheless it adopted a minimalist approach, only enacting those laws urgently needed to combat existential threats. Therefore, while the national security law covered secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with foreign forces, it did not extend to treason, sedition, theft of state secrets or controls on foreign political organisations.

To this unfinished business Hong Kong must turn, and the phrase “as early as possible” is unequivocal. Indeed, the only real surprise is that, 13 months after it was ordained by the national security law, the legislation is still outstanding. What is required has been obvious for many years, and, once the government formulates its proposals, expedition is of the essence. After all, the standing committee has, in the national security law, done most of the heavy lifting.