A four-week public consultation for Hong Kong’s domestic security law began on Tuesday, after the first attempt to enact the controversial legislation required under Article 23 of the city’s mini-constitution failed following mass protests more than 20 years ago...

Human rights NGO Amnesty International on Tuesday described Hong Kong as facing “potentially the most dangerous moment for human rights” since the Beijing-imposed national security law was enacted in June 2020. The enactment of domestic security legislation could “further entrench repression in the city,” the group’s China director Sarah Brooks said. The NGO, which exited Hong Kong in 2021 citing operational concerns following the enactment of the national security law, accused authorities as using that legislation to “persecute” activists, politicians, journalists and civil society groups. The newly proposed law would likely proceed with “minimal meaning consultation” and no guarantee that it would comply with international law, Amnesty added...

In a joint statement released on Tuesday, the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce, the Chinese Manufacturers’ Association of Hong Kong, the Federation of Hong Kong Industries and the Chinese General Chamber of Commerce said implementing Article 23 would provide a solid framework to protect national security and improve the overall business environment. It was a general consensus that there was a need for the city’s homegrown security legislation, as investment sentiment in Hong Kong was “seriously hurt” by the 2019 unrest. The law would help “eliminate any unnecessary doubts,” the business groups said.

Article 23 of the Basic Law stipulates that the government shall enact laws on its own to prohibit acts of treason, secession, sedition and subversion against Beijing. Its legislation failed in 2003 following mass protests and it remained taboo until after the onset of the separate, Beijing-imposed security law in 2020. Pro-democracy advocates fear it could have a negative effect on civil liberties but the authorities say there is a constitutional duty to ratify it.