[2][3] On national security grounds, the ordinance gives new powers to the government to investigate external interference, theft of state secrets, insurrection, and treason, with penalties up to life imprisonment for those found guilty of certain crimes specified by the law.

[5]An attempt at enacting legislation to satisfy the requirements in Article 23 was made in 2003 but was shelved indefinitely after hundreds of thousands of protestors demonstrated against it, resulting in the pro-Beijing Liberal Party opposing the bill and the subsequent lacking of a majority to pass.

Xi Jinping's accession to General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, the top position in November 2012, marked a more hard-line authoritarian approach, most notably with the construction of Xinjiang internment camps.

[8] After the national security law was imposed, Chief Executive Carrie Lam pledged to conduct as much preparatory work as possible but noted that the administration might not be able to complete the legislation by the end of its current term.

In March 2021, the Chinese Communist Party initiated electoral overhaul that plans to ensure only "patriots" may run for office and exclude political opposition.

Following the election that saw pro-government members capturing nearly all seats, the new legislature convened the first session in January 2022, during which Carrie Lam confirmed "local legislation" will be drafted that meets Article 23 to outlaw new national security crimes.

[9][10] Tang revealed that the government aims to launch a public consultation by the end of the term of the current administration in late June, and table the draft to the parliament in the second half of the year.

Unveiling his manifesto in April 2022, John Lee pledged to enact the Article 23 bill to fulfill the constitutional responsibility of legislation as part of improving governance.

Sources quoted by the media said the "unusual" arrangement was made as the government intended to enact the legislation by National Security Education Day on 15 April.

[20] The bill includes five areas of national security crimes: treason, insurrection and incitement to mutiny, theft of state secrets and espionage, sabotage, and external interference.

[21] Treason, insurrection and sabotage, targeting acts that endanger the sovereignty of China and collusion with foreign forces in damaging public infrastructure may face up to life imprisonment.

[33] Targeting the exiled activists, the bill proposed enabling the authorities to impose a series of restrictions on the wanted individual, such as annulling their Hong Kong passport, prohibiting anyone from providing them with funds, suspending their professional qualifications, and removing their directorship of a company.

[35]s.14,16,55 The US raised concerns that the law can be applied extraterritorially to "intimidate" and restrict the free speech of US residents, while undermine China's international commitments and the One Country, Two Systems framework.

[36] Hong Kong government said it "strongly disapproved" the concerns, and the "proportionate" extraterritorial effect was fully in line with international common practice, or else it would amount to condoning activities threatening national security.

[37] As the government insisted on a speedy and fast-track debate, the Executive Council convened a special meeting on 7 March for consideration of the Safeguarding National Security Bill.

Immediately after the urge from John Lee, President of the Legislative Council Andrew Leung also decided to convene an off-schedule special meeting on the next day solely for the bill, soon after it was expected to be revealed to the public.

[citation needed] All 88 lawmakers, except the President, spoke and expressed support in a highly enthusiastic mood during the second reading of the bill, with one, Lam So-wai from Professional Power, even claiming to endorse the legislation wholeheartedly "even at the cost of having her body smashed into pieces".

Democratic Party argued the wording of the bill was overly vague and the low threshold to incriminate others, which could create more "chilling effect" and harming the international reputation of Hong Kong.

[54] On the penultimate day of the consultation period, LSD held a rare three-men demonstration, with chairwoman Chan Po-ying and two vice-chairmen Yu Wai-pan and Chow Ka-fat,[55] outside the government complex under the watch of a dozen police officers who also stopped and searched them.

The group, who continued to demand universal suffrage, said following the 2020 security law, human rights and freedom suffered setback while civil society was dealt a severe blow.

"[46] Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office of the Chinese Government said the passage of the law "once again proved that the wheel of history is rolling forward, the righteous cause is undefeatable, and no reactionary force can stop the 'one country, two systems' from advancing".

Brussels added "the vague definition of state secrets and extraterritoriality, and the consequential offence of external interference could impact EU's office, consulates, nationals and organisations".

[58] Australia and the United Kingdom, following a bilateral summit in Adelaide on Friday, decried the law as part of a "systemic erosion" of autonomy, liberty and rights in Hong Kong.

[61] China defended the law and denounced countries that "smear" legislation, stressing the firm determination to oppose external interference in Hong Kong affairs.

[62] The New York Times wrote the law "could have a chilling effect on a wide range of people, including entrepreneurs, civil servants, lawyers, diplomats, journalists and academics, raising questions about Hong Kong’s status as an international city".

Early in January, the government announced establishing "response and refute team", led by Chris Tang, to rebut criticism from "hostile forces".

Some comments presented in the consultation document suggested a ban on social media including Facebook, YouTube, Telegram and Signal from operating in Hong Kong, which were said to be hotbeds of crime for dissemination of seditious information.

The minister added that many other countries implemented similar or even stricter measures on restricting national security defendants as well, and accused the Bloomberg article for holding "double standards".

[69] In the statement the Hong Kong authorities said the report was "extremely misleading" and "completely wrong" intended to generate panic, adding that the prosecution has to prove that the defendant possesses the publication "without reasonable excuse" before conviction.

[72] Commissioner's Office of China's Foreign Ministry in Hong Kong said in an open letter to the editorial board that it was "deeply shocked" by the paper's "ignorance and double standard".