儘管反對者派肆意曲解，但由全國人民代表大會提議的《國家安全法》擁有堅實的法律基礎，必將惠及本地區。全國人大起草將在香港實施的新「國安法」的決定，已經在全球範圍內引發密切關注。很多人擔心，新法案會破壞「一國兩制」的憲法安排，令這個自由的城市陷入混亂與絕望，其後果是被稱為「東方之珠」的香港失去作為全球金融中心的光環。

雖然這些擔憂在一定程度上可以理解，但我想就香港特別行政區的國家安全議題釐清幾個關鍵問題。

首先，中華人民共和國是一個統一的國家，而香港是中國不可分割的一部分（「基本法」第1條和第12條）。香港是由中央政府直接管轄的特別行政區，中央政府對其擁有絕對權威。香港的高度自治僅限於由全國人大授予的權限，這些權限在「基本法」中有明確規定。

在這樣一種憲制秩序下，北京無疑要對國家安全負責，這不屬於香港特別行政區的自治範圍。令人遺憾的是，很多香港人誤解了這一新秩序，他們中的一些人甚至是肆意曲解。一些人聲稱，除了國防和外交事務，中華人民共和國完全無權治理香港。我們必須闡明的一個核心問題是，「高度自治」並非「完全自治」。

常識是，香港並非一個獨立的主權國家，中央政府在1997年從英國收回香港主權時建立了香港特別行政區，其所有權力與自治都是中央政府授予的。國防與外交事務顯然屬於中央政府的管轄範圍，正如「基本法」明確規定的那樣。但是，北京對於香港的治理權限遠不止於此，尤其是主權問題。

或許有人會說，繞過香港的立法機構，北京開了一個踐踏香港法律體系的危險先例。而我認為，這種做法完全符合憲法和「基本法」，並未破壞「一國兩制」或香港的法律體系。我們都知道，憲法是最高法律，任何法律都不得與憲法相違背。這適用於中華人民共和國的任何地區。

換言之，憲法是全國人大或全國人大常委會頒佈所有法律的基石和授權工具。「基本法」是適用於香港的特殊法律，當「基本法」與憲法發生衝突時，「基本法」應當遵從憲法。提議出台新法案的決定符合憲法第31條和第62條第2、第14和第16款，以及香港「基本法」第18條。

由這些擔憂引申而來的問題還有：一旦港區安全法得以實施，自由與自治會遭到侵蝕嗎？

雖然港區安全法的細節還未披露，但我們知道該法案的適用範圍以及起草原則。我堅信，即便新法案得以實施，香港人的言論自由、集會自由、遊行自由和示威自由都將得以保全，正如它們在香港強健的法治和獨立的司法體系中得到切實保護一樣。該法案的管轄範圍也在5月28日的人大決定中得到了明確規定。

也許有人會問，香港真的需要實施《國家安全法》嗎？

每個國家都需要立法來保護其國家安全，中國也不例外。香港特別行政區內任何危害國家安全的行為或行動都會影響中國，因此需要國家安全立法來保護、阻止並懲治這些行為或行動。中華人民共和國於2015年通過的《國家安全法》並不適用於香港，因為兩種體制存在差別。因此需要發佈適用於香港的單獨的國家安全立法。

因為國家安全不屬於香港特別行政區的自治權限，完全是中央政府的職責，「基本法」第23條要求香港針對危害國家安全的行為進行立法。不幸的是，香港回歸23年了，至今仍然未能完成「基本法」第23條的立法。

北京的耐心正逐漸被消磨殆盡。尤其一小部分與外國勢力合謀的反對人士和激進分子挑起荒唐的暴力行為，已經突破了中央政府的底線。在2019年反對「逃犯條例修訂草案」運動期間，國際社會目睹了騷亂分子在香港街頭肆意破壞的一幕。這凸顯出在香港出台國家安全立法的迫切性與必要性。惡化的形勢證明了全國人大根據「基本法」第18條發佈法案的正當性。在作出這一決定時，全國人大援引了憲法第31條和第62條第2、第14和第16款作為法律基礎。

遵守憲法和「基本法」的條文，有國家最高權力機構出手，怎麼能說是繞過香港的立法機構呢？。

最後，有些人士聲稱，中國最高領導人鄧小平承諾的「50年不變」，意味着香港應保持1997年6月30日以前的制度不變。我的理解是，「50年不變」意味着中央政府對香港的基本政策不會改變，正如在《中英聯合聲明》附件一中規定的那樣，但這些政策的實施當然可以調整，尤其當這些調整將惠及香港發展的時候。

實施「國安法」事實上開啟了香港可持續發展和穩定的新篇章。改進維護國家安全的立法與執法機制，對於憲制秩序的回歸至關重要。將推出的「國安法」不僅沒有違反「基本法」，還會幫助港人重拾信心，同時確保「一國兩制」行穩致遠。

The decision of the National People's Congress to draft a new security law to be imposed in Hong Kong, has sparked severe concerns around the globe. Many people fear that the new law could undermine the constitutional arrangement of “one country, two systems” and plunge the once-freewheeling city into turmoil and despair. As a result, Hong Kong, dubbed “the pearl of the Orient,” could lose its halo as a global financial hub.

While the concerns are somewhat understandable, I would like to clarify a few key points relating to the HKSAR's national security issue.

First of all, the People's Republic of China is a unitary country, and Hong Kong is an inalienable part of China (BL 1 & 12). It is a special administrative region directly under the central government which has complete authority over it. Hong Kong's high degree of autonomy is confined to those authorities delegated to it by NPC and set out in the Basic Law, and all other powers belong to the sovereign.

Under such a constitutional order, Beijing is undoubtedly responsible for national security, which is beyond the scope of the Hong Kong SAR's authority. Sadly, many Hong Kongers have misunderstood this new constitutional order — some of them willfully. Some people argue that the PRC has no power over Hong Kong at all, apart from defense and foreign affairs. It should be clarified herewith that the “high degree of autonomy” at the center of the constitutional question is not total autonomy.

It is common sense that Hong Kong is not an independent sovereign state, as all of its power and autonomy was granted by the central government, which established the region on its return to China from Britain in 1997. Defense and foreign affairs are matters clearly within the sphere and scope of the central government, as stipulated unambiguously in the Basic Law. But Beijing's governing powers over Hong Kong are much more than that. Certain powers are reserved to the central government, particularly in matters of sovereignty.

Some may argue that in bypassing Hong Kong's legislature, Beijing is setting a dangerous precedent of overriding HK's legal system. It my view, it is entirely in compliance with the Constitution and the Basic Law, and does not undermine one country two systems or Hong Kong's legal system. We all know that the Constitution is the supreme law and no law can contravene the Constitution. It applies to the whole territory.

In other words, the Constitution is the foundational source and the authorizing vehicle for all laws promulgated by the NPC or its Standing Committee. The Basic Law is the specific law applicable to Hong Kong, and when there is a difference between the two, then the Basic Law applies. The decision to propose a new law is in accordance with Article 31 and Article 62 (2), (14) and (16) of the Constitution, and with Article 18 of Hong Kong's Basic Law.

A further discussion on the concern: Will freedoms and autonomy be eroded under the new laws once enacted?

Although the details of the law have not yet been disclosed, we know the scope of the law and the principles on which it will be drafted. I am fully confident that notwithstanding the enactment of the law, Hong Kong people's freedom of speech, of assembly, of procession and of demonstration will remain intact, as they are well protected by our robust rule of law and an independent judiciary. The parameters of the law were also set out in the decision on May 28.

Some people may ask: Does Hong Kong really need a national security law?

Every country needs legislation to protect its national security, and China is no exception. Any behavior or activity in the HKSAR that endangers national security affects China, and the need is clear for national security legislation to prevent, stop and punish it. The National Security Law of the PRC that was passed in 2015 does not apply to Hong Kong because of the differences in the two systems. It is therefore necessary for separate Nationality Security Legislation to be promulgated that is applicable to Hong Kong.

Because National Security is outside the autonomy of the HKSAR and is certainly the responsibility of the central government, BL 23 entrusts Hong Kong with the responsibility to make legislation regarding certain acts that endanger national security. Unfortunately, Hong Kong has failed in the past 23 years to implement BL 23.

Beijing's patience has gradually worn thin. In particular, the wanton acts of violence, instigated by a handful of opposition figures and radical elements colluding with foreign forces, have crossed China's bottom line. People around the globe had witnessed the rioters rampaging through HK's streets during the movement against the proposed extradition bill in 2019, which illustrates the urgency and necessity of introducing national security legislation. The worsening situation truly warrants the NPC's initiative to take into its own hands the promulgation of the law in accordance with BL 18. In making this decision, the NPC cited Articles 31 and 62(2)(14) & (16) of the Constitution as the source of its authority.

These articles relate to the power to establish a special administrative region and to decide the systems applicable to it and the standing required to exercise such other functions and powers as the highest organ of state power should exercise. If making the decision is authorized by the Constitution and the Basic Law, how can this be bypassing the legislature? Hong Kong itself has failed to do it. The entrusting authority can certainly take measures to remedy such a default.

Finally, many pundits claim that “50 years unchanged,” as promised by Chinese paramount leader Deng Xiao Ping means that Hong Kong should remain as it was on June 30, 1997. My understanding is that 50 years unchanged means the basic policies of the Chinese mainland toward Hong Kong as set out in Annex 1 to the Sino British Joint Declaration shall not be changed, but the implementation of such policies may of course be changed, particularly when it allows for the beneficial development of Hong Kong.

Imposition of a national law is actually turning a new chapter for sustainable, stable governance and prosperity in Hong Kong. Improving legislation and enforcement mechanisms in protecting national security are important for the return to law and order. Instead of ruining one country, two systems, the newly enacted law could help Hong Kong regain the full confidence and trust of its citizens, and ensure that the Basic Law being correctly implemented.