尽管反对者派肆意曲解，但由全国人民代表大会提议的《国家安全法》拥有坚实的法律基础，必将惠及本地区。全国人大起草将在香港实施的新「国安法」的决定，已经在全球范围内引发密切关注。很多人担心，新法案会破坏「一国两制」的宪法安排，令这个自由的城市陷入混乱与绝望，其后果是被称为「东方之珠」的香港失去作为全球金融中心的光环。

虽然这些担忧在一定程度上可以理解，但我想就香港特别行政区的国家安全议题厘清几个关键问题。

首先，中华人民共和国是一个统一的国家，而香港是中国不可分割的一部分（「基本法」第1条和第12条）。香港是由中央政府直接管辖的特别行政区，中央政府对其拥有绝对权威。香港的高度自治仅限于由全国人大授予的权限，这些权限在「基本法」中有明确规定。

在这样一种宪制秩序下，北京无疑要对国家安全负责，这不属于香港特别行政区的自治范围。令人遗憾的是，很多香港人误解了这一新秩序，他们中的一些人甚至是肆意曲解。一些人声称，除了国防和外交事务，中华人民共和国完全无权治理香港。我们必须阐明的一个核心问题是，「高度自治」并非「完全自治」。

常识是，香港并非一个独立的主权国家，中央政府在1997年从英国收回香港主权时建立了香港特别行政区，其所有权力与自治都是中央政府授予的。国防与外交事务显然属于中央政府的管辖范围，正如「基本法」明确规定的那样。但是，北京对于香港的治理权限远不止于此，尤其是主权问题。

或许有人会说，绕过香港的立法机构，北京开了一个践踏香港法律体系的危险先例。而我认为，这种做法完全符合宪法和「基本法」，并未破坏「一国两制」或香港的法律体系。我们都知道，宪法是最高法律，任何法律都不得与宪法相违背。这适用于中华人民共和国的任何地区。

换言之，宪法是全国人大或全国人大常委会颁布所有法律的基石和授权工具。「基本法」是适用于香港的特殊法律，当「基本法」与宪法发生冲突时，「基本法」应当遵从宪法。提议出台新法案的决定符合宪法第31条和第62条第2、第14和第16款，以及香港「基本法」第18条。

由这些担忧引申而来的问题还有：一旦港区安全法得以实施，自由与自治会遭到侵蚀吗？

虽然港区安全法的细节还未披露，但我们知道该法案的适用范围以及起草原则。我坚信，即便新法案得以实施，香港人的言论自由、集会自由、游行自由和示威自由都将得以保全，正如它们在香港强健的法治和独立的司法体系中得到切实保护一样。该法案的管辖范围也在5月28日的人大决定中得到了明确规定。

也许有人会问，香港真的需要实施《国家安全法》吗？

每个国家都需要立法来保护其国家安全，中国也不例外。香港特别行政区内任何危害国家安全的行为或行动都会影响中国，因此需要国家安全立法来保护、阻止并惩治这些行为或行动。中华人民共和国于2015年通过的《国家安全法》并不适用于香港，因为两种体制存在差别。因此需要发布适用于香港的单独的国家安全立法。

因为国家安全不属于香港特别行政区的自治权限，完全是中央政府的职责，「基本法」第23条要求香港针对危害国家安全的行为进行立法。不幸的是，香港回归23年了，至今仍然未能完成「基本法」第23条的立法。

北京的耐心正逐渐被消磨殆尽。尤其一小部分与外国势力合谋的反对人士和激进分子挑起荒唐的暴力行为，已经突破了中央政府的底线。在2019年反对「逃犯条例修订草案」运动期间，国际社会目睹了骚乱分子在香港街头肆意破坏的一幕。这凸显出在香港出台国家安全立法的迫切性与必要性。恶化的形势证明了全国人大根据「基本法」第18条发布法案的正当性。在作出这一决定时，全国人大援引了宪法第31条和第62条第2、第14和第16款作为法律基础。

遵守宪法和「基本法」的条文，有国家最高权力机构出手，怎么能说是绕过香港的立法机构呢？。

最后，有些人士声称，中国最高领导人邓小平承诺的「50年不变」，意味着香港应保持1997年6月30日以前的制度不变。我的理解是，「50年不变」意味着中央政府对香港的基本政策不会改变，正如在《中英联合声明》附件一中规定的那样，但这些政策的实施当然可以调整，尤其当这些调整将惠及香港发展的时候。

实施「国安法」事实上开启了香港可持续发展和稳定的新篇章。改进维护国家安全的立法与执法机制，对于宪制秩序的回归至关重要。将推出的「国安法」不仅没有违反「基本法」，还会帮助港人重拾信心，同时确保「一国两制」行稳致远。

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.