National People's Congress decision on Hong Kong national security legislation

The draft comprises 7 articles.[20] Article 1 restates the importance of one country, two systems and the rule of law, and states that the "state" will "complete" legal and enforcement mechanisms to preserve national security. Article 2 says that the state will stop and punish "overseas forces' use of Hong Kong" for separatist, subversive or destructive activities. Article 3 states that maintaining China's sovereignty is Hong Kong's constitutional responsibility. It further requires Hong Kong to enact national security legislation "as soon as possible", and its executive, legislature and judiciary to "stop and punish conduct endangering national security".

Article 4 requires Hong Kong to establish institutions to protect national security, and provides for a central government presence in Hong Kong to maintain national security. Article 5 requires regular reports from the Chief Executive of Hong Kong on national security. Article 6 authorises the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress to draft a national security law, and then to include it in Annex III of the Basic Law. Article 7 provides that the decision as a whole shall take effect on promulgation.

After 3 days of the meeting of the Standing Committee, that preparing the new legislation, on June 20, 2020, the Xinhua newspaper has published draft details that the Standing Committee had elaborated: presumed settling China's security office in Hong Kong to monitor security, as well as rules about monitoring education regarding national security aspects, prime importance of China's government decisions above Hong Kong government: "If the local laws... are inconsistent with this Law, the provisions of this Law shall apply. The power to interpret this law belongs to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress."[21]

Hundreds took to the street to demonstrate against the proposed national security law on 24 May 2020.

Protesters marched in Mong Kok to protest against the proposed national security law and the national anthem bill on 27 May 2020.

On 24 May 2020 a rally occurred to protest against the proposed security law. It was the biggest protest in Hong Kong since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic.[22] For the first time in two months, the police deployed tear gas in an attempt to disperse the protesters.[23]

On 27 May 2020, protesters gathered again on the streets to protest against the proposed national security law and the national anthem bill, which underwent its second reading on that day. Demonstrations of varying scale occurred in different districts including Causeway Bay, Central, and Mong Kok. Tear gas and pepper balls were fired and 360 people were arrested that day for unauthorised assembly and other charges.[24][25]

The Guardian's China specialists Tania Branigan and Lily Kuo wrote that the protest movement in Hong Kong changed after the NPC announcement of the law, with the mood shifting to one where many Hong Kong protestors are willing and prepared to die for the cause of keeping Mainland Chinese influence out, and with calls to find an impactful and permanent solution to Mainland Chinese interference, rather than small-scale measures. A rare slogan, calling for complete independence rather than more control, became the unifying chant of the protests, while the concept of lam chao gained momentum. This is the ideology of taking Hong Kong down and dragging Mainland China with it. One protestor said: "If the Chinese army comes out, we will celebrate. The entire Hong Kong business environment will collapse. If they call the military here, it would ruin Hong Kong and also mainland China's economy".[26]

Losses of about 5% were recorded in on the Hang Seng Index (the worst day since 2015[27]), and some Japanese stocks also fell.[28] Carrie Lam denied that the losses were due to the decision, attributing them to usual "ups and downs" in the market.[29] China has sought to assure international investors that they will not be affected.[30] Hang Seng Index regained lost ground a week later.[31]

Some Hong Kong citizens began looking for ways to emigrate and leave Hong Kong, feeling that the law would fundamentally damage their rights of expression and freedom. 10 times the usual number of web searches about emigration were recorded after the decision was announced.[32] The Taiwanese government said that they would help anyone leaving Hong Kong find passage away; China threatened "all means" against Taiwan but also said violence would be a last resort.[33]

SCMP reported that after the decision on the law, the number of Hong Kong residents speaking to estate agents about properties in the United Kingdom (UK) rose rapidly. One article compared it to the mass exodus seen before the 1997 handover, also saying that local estate agents were cutting the asking prices for Hong Kong properties to keep business.[34] Another SCMP article noted that the British announcement of BNO extension plans likely contributed to the rise in searches for UK homes specifically, with properties in London, Birmingham and Manchester being especially desirable. It quoted an estate agent who said that the demand for UK properties had, over a few days, reached where it was at its peak during the 2019 protests and before the pandemic.[35]

Immigration agencies in Hong Kong also saw a jump in inquiries, with one company seeing "a four to fivefold increase in cases", citing a new urgency, with people asking for the visa that will be approved the fastest.[34] Estate agencies report an increase in interest in Singapore for high net worth individuals, with families increasingly asking about the UK, Australia, and Canada.[36]

Chief Executive Carrie Lam said that the Hong Kong government would fully cooperate with Beijing.[29] Andrew Leung, the President of the LegCo, and Martin Liao, pro-establishment LegCo convener, also expressed support.[37] Lam said that any national security law enacted would not affect the "legitimate rights and freedoms" of Hong Kong people, and said that its enactment by inclusion in Annex III of the Basic Law (see above) was entirely legitimate.

Paul Kwong the Archbishop and Primate of the Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui (the Anglican province of Hong Kong), and Venerable Master Kuan Yun, the president of the Hong Kong Buddhist Association, called the decision a necessary move.[38]

Chen Daoxiang, the PLA commander in Hong Kong, said that his garrison would safeguard "national sovereignty and development interests", and that the national security law to be drafted and enacted under the decision was "conducive to deter separatist forces and external intervention".[39]

The New York Times reported that state media painted laws proposed by the decision as "necessary to protect the rule of the Communist Party" and were strongly supportive of the law.[40]

At the District Councils joint meeting on 6 June 2020, councillors displayed signboards demanding the withdrawal of the national security law.

The Hong Kong Bar Association issued a statement raising two concerns as to the nature of the law proposed by the decision.[19][41] First, the association suggested that consultation was inadequate and that there was no guarantee that any eventual law would comply with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which is "entrenched in the Basic Law". Second, the presence of mainland Chinese security organs mooted by Article 4 of the Decision did not make clear whether their agents would be required to comply with Hong Kong law, or how their deployment could be compatible with Article 22(1) of the Basic Law, which proscribes interference in affairs administered by the HKSAR 'on its own'.

On 6 June 2020, 17 out 18 District Councils unprecedentedly held a joint meeting to discuss the legislation of the national security law, with 329 out of 458 councillors attending. All 17 District Councils passed the motion to demand the withdrawal of the national security law. The convener Clarisse Yeung, who is also the chairwoman of the Wan Chai District Council, stated that the result of the meeting reflects the real public opinion in Hong Kong.[42]

Several members of the pan-democratic camp expressed concern. Lee Cheuk-yan said that the law could be used as an arbitrary "one-size-fits-all" charge against activists, citing Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo's prison sentence of 11 years for "inciting subversion".[43] Tanya Chan, the convener of pro-democratic camp, commented that the drafted decision confirmed that Hong Kong is changing from "One country, Two systems" to "One country, One system", saying that the Chinese government is intervening in Hong Kong matters in all aspects.[11] Social activist Joshua Wong said that China was trying to sever the connections of Hong Kong with the international community.[11] Jimmy Sham, convener of the Civil Human Rights Front, also attacked the law, comparing it to a "nuclear weapon".[44]

On 28 May, Dominic Raab, UK Foreign Secretary, said that if plans to enact a national security law under the decision were not shelved, Britain would allow holders of British National (Overseas) passports from Hong Kong to remain in the UK for an initial period of twelve months instead of six as previously, allow them to apply to study and work, and thereby provide them a path to citizenship.[45] Later reports suggested that these changes would apply not just to the 300,000 current holders of such passports, but also the 2.9 million who were eligible to obtain one but did not.[46]

On 27 May, Pompeo called the decision the "latest in a series of actions that fundamentally undermine Hong Kong's autonomy and freedoms", and certified to Congress under the Hong Kong Policy Act that Hong Kong was no longer autonomous.[47] Sanctions, higher tariffs and visa restrictions may follow the certification; David Stilwell, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and Pacific Affairs, said that the target of any decision would be "officials in Beijing", not those in Hong Kong or the United States.[48] On 29 May, Donald Trump said that his administration would end Hong Kong's trade privileges.[49][50] Under the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act, Hong Kong is treated for trade and other purposes as separate from the rest of China; for example, it has mostly not been directly affected by US tariffs on Chinese goods in the US-China trade war; however, if Hong Kong is determined to no longer be sufficiently autonomous, such preferential treatment may cease.[51]

Two US senators, Republican Pat Toomey and Democrat Chris Van Hollen, said they plan to introduce a bill that "would introduce legislation to impose sanctions on Chinese officials for violating Hong Kong’s independence."[52] On 24 May 2020, White House National Security Adviser Robert O'Brien says the US will impose sanctions on Hong Kong and mainland China if the security law is passed.[53]

On 19 June 2020, the European Parliament adopted a resolution condemning Beijing’s unilateral introduction of the national security legislation in Hong Kong, stating that it was a comprehensive assault on Hong Kong’s autonomy, rule of law, and fundamental freedoms. The resolution stressed that as China’s largest export destination, the EU should use its economic leverage to challenge China’s crackdown on human rights. It urged the EU to include a human right clause in any future trade agreement with China, and to take the human right situation in Hong Kong into consideration when asked by China to endorse any investment or trade deals in the future.

The resolution also stated that China’s decision to impose the national security legislation was a violation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration, since it entirely bypassed Hong Kong’s own legislative process and attempted to curb the freedom and autonomy of Hong Kong. The resolution suggested that in the event of the national security law being applied, the EU should file a case before the International Court of Justice alleging China’s violation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Various other measures to ameliorate the human rights situation in China, especially that in Hong Kong, were also included in the resolution. It called for the finalization of the EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Mechanism, which could be used to impose Magnitsky-style sanctions, for example assets freezing, on Chinese officials responsible for the national security legislation. It also suggested that the EU could coordinate sanctions with its democratic partners such as the USA or Canada. Other measures such as a stricter control mechanism for exporting cyber-surveillance technology to China, or a “lifeboat scheme” for Hong Kong citizens in case of the deterioration of human rights in Hong Kong, was also mentioned in the resolution. [54]

Several statements urging respect for the One country, two systems principle, adherence to human rights norms, and local consultation were issued by the European Union;[55] Japan; [56] Switzerland;[57] the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia as a group, especially concerned with Sino-British Joint Declaration;[58][59] both the governing Democratic Progressive Party and opposition Kuomintang in Taiwan;[60] the United States;[61] and a group of over 356 parliamentarians from 32 countries led by Chris Patten.[62][63][64]

Russia, North Korea, Pakistan, Venezuela, Serbia, Syria, Iran, Kazakhstan and Cambodia said that no foreign state should interfere in China's internal affairs, and criticised the US for doing so.[65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73]