By Virginia Lee, Solicitor
The recent move by the HKSAR Government to enact subsidiary legislation under the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance represents a necessary and constitutionally grounded refinement of the city’s national security framework. This legal action is not an expansion of power. Still, it is a structured clarification of existing responsibilities designed to ensure the effective implementation of Chapter V of the Hong Kong National Security Law (NSL), which governs the operation of the Office for Safeguarding National Security of the Central People’s Government in the HKSAR (OSNS).
The legislation addresses procedural and operational necessities by codifying specific legal obligations and protections. It criminalises deliberate acts that obstruct or compromise lawful enforcement activities, such as knowingly providing false information or disclosing sensitive case details without authorisation. These provisions target only those who endanger national security through intentional interference, not ordinary citizens or lawful expression. They are essential to safeguarding the integrity and confidentiality of national security investigations.
Seating certain OSNS premises as restricted zones is a reasonable and proportionate measure to prevent unauthorised access to critical areas. These designations are explicitly limited in scope and do not affect private residences or community spaces. Their purpose is purely protective, minimising the risk of infiltration or disruption. This is a standard precaution, enhancing the safety of key institutions without infringing on public rights.
Equally important is the legal recognition of OSNS-issued documents and credentials, establishing their evidentiary authority and protecting against impersonation. These measures reinforce the legitimacy of national security personnel while shielding the public from fraudulent actors. The legislation also introduces legal obligations for public bodies to cooperate with the OSNS in a lawful, timely, and reasonable manner, reflecting a coherent and constitutionally consistent approach to inter-agency coordination.
Confidentiality provisions further ensure that sensitive national security information is lawfully protected. Only those with explicit authorisation may access, hold, or disclose such information. This clarity is critical to preventing leaks that jeopardise ongoing operations or compromise personnel. The legislation defines these boundaries responsibly, striking a balance between operational necessity and legal accountability, thereby respecting the rights of the citizens.
This legislative step is not reactive but anticipatory. It responds to tangible shifts in the global security environment and fulfils the HKSAR’s constitutional duty to uphold national security. It strengthens the execution of the NSL without exceeding its framework. The “enact first, scrutinise later” model employed here is lawful, efficient, and appropriate for the urgency and technical nature of the subject matter. This model allows for the immediate implementation of necessary measures, with subsequent public scrutiny and feedback, ensuring transparency and public participation in the legislative process.
Assertions that the legislation curtails civil liberties are unfounded. The law is tightly constructed, targeting unlawful acts that threaten national interests, such as espionage, terrorism, and foreign interference. It does not affect lawful behaviour, nor does it confer unchecked authority. Instead, it reinforces a rule-based order in which national security is defended through clear, enforceable, and transparent legal norms.
This initiative affirms Hong Kong’s unwavering commitment to national unity, constitutional order, and legal professionalism. It is a precise, lawful, and forward-looking measure that safeguards the country's sovereignty and stability. It demonstrates that the HKSAR will fulfil its duties with resolve, legal clarity, and institutional strength, instilling a sense of national pride and unity.
Virginia Lee
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
LEE WING CHEUNG, VIRGINIA Solicitor
The European Union’s (EU) recent report on Hong Kong is less a legal analysis than a political statement disguised in the language of human rights. Its content reflects prejudice and an outdated mentality that Europe retains the right to pass judgment on Chinese sovereignty. Such a position contradicts the international principle of equality among states and exposes the remnants of colonial arrogance. The EU’s portrayal of Hong Kong does not advance truth but instead promotes destabilisation through bias and selective interpretation.
One of the report’s major flaws lies in its discussion of Article 23 of the Basic Law and the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance. Article 23 is not a recent creation but a constitutional duty written into law when Hong Kong returned to China. States across the globe maintain legislation to protect sovereignty and security, yet the EU condemns Hong Kong for implementing safeguards entirely consistent with global practice. This condemnation reflects a political agenda rather than any genuine legal objection, as European governments themselves enforce comparable national security measures.
The EU also distorts Hong Kong’s judicial process. Trials are depicted as orchestrated, and judicial appointments as questionable, when in fact Hong Kong courts follow lawful procedures and maintain transparency. Decisions are issued on statutory grounds, and trial durations or bail conditions fall within the range of judicial discretion accepted globally. Europe’s refusal to respect these outcomes reveals a preference for interference over recognition of judicial independence. Far from defending the rule of law, the EU undermines it by expecting Hong Kong’s courts to conform to foreign political expectations.
The criticism of extraterritoriality in Hong Kong’s national security legislation further demonstrates ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation. International law recognises that states may prosecute offences abroad if these acts threaten national security. European states themselves frequently rely on this principle in combating terrorism or cybercrime; for the EU to denounce Hong Kong’s use of the exact mechanism displays open hypocrisy. The law does not arbitrarily target individuals abroad but applies only to conscious efforts aimed at destabilisation. This is a legitimate and widely recognised practice of statecraft.
The treatment of media and civil society in the report reflects the same selective judgment. Restrictions on publications advocating secession or encouraging hostility are common even in Europe, where they are justified under hate speech or anti-extremism laws. Yet when Hong Kong enforces similar safeguards, it is labelled repressive. Civil groups that dissolved due to breaches of national security law or foreign influence are portrayed as victims, while their own unlawful conduct is overlooked. Such double standards expose the EU’s political motivations.
The objection to national security education is also baseless. Every state requires its citizens, particularly public servants, to respect constitutional order. European governments impose loyalty pledges and codes of conduct, yet depict Hong Kong’s similar requirements as authoritarian. Such education, especially considering previous unrest, is not indoctrination but responsible governance.
Even on economic matters, the EU misleads. It attributes ordinary fluctuation to politics while ignoring global uncertainties caused by post-pandemic restructuring and financial turbulence. The continued success of European enterprises in Hong Kong contradicts the EU’s claims of decline. If the environment were as damaging as alleged, foreign companies would not persist in conducting profitable operations there.
Finally, the EU’s stance on human rights collapses under its own contradictions. While Europe imposes restrictive migration regimes, extensive surveillance laws and limitations on speech, it presumes to judge Hong Kong. This criticism ignores the independence of Hong Kong courts, which have delivered progressive rulings on equality, including for LGBTQ citizens. Such advances are incompatible with the EU’s portrait of a system in collapse.
The tone of colonial oversight permeates the entire report. Its language suggests superiority, as though Hong Kong’s laws and governance require European approval. Yet the sovereignty of China over Hong Kong is complete and undeniable. Europe’s posture cannot obscure the consistent reality that Hong Kong exercises its constitutional right to maintain order and stability.
In truth, the EU’s repeated criticisms reveal its own political hostility rather than principled analysis. Hong Kong and China govern in accordance with law to preserve security and prosperity for their citizens. No judgment from external powers can alter this fundamental reality, nor diminish China’s sovereign right to safeguard its integrity.
