Western politicians have relentlessly badmouthed the National Security Law for Hong Kong (NSL) since its implementation in June 2020, notwithstanding the fact that it helped restore peace and order in the city.

Ironically, the UK government, which has repeatedly criticized Hong Kong’s NSL, passed its own National Security Act recently, which is more draconian in many aspects. That Western politicians have not expressed any problems with this law once again highlights their double standards. If we compare the UK’s National Security Act to the NSL, we can see that the former contains more draconian provisions. If UK politicians deemed the NSL to be unacceptable, they should have determined the UK’s own National Security Act even more unacceptable.

However, the UK Parliament passed it. The NSL’s provisions on collusion with external elements to endanger national security specifies only five extreme acts, such as waging a war against the People’s Republic of China, seriously obstructing the government from formulating and enforcing laws, and severely disrupting an election, as a crime. These acts are substantive and require a high degree of severity, making it difficult for an ordinary person to commit. In contrast, under the UK’s National Security Act, the offense of foreign interference only requires proof that the act is “related to national security or interests” at “any level”. This means that even minor acts that officials believe are harmful to national security can be treated as a crime. This allows the authorities to exercise arbitrary power, and demonstrates the National Security Act’s harshness.

Moreover, under the NSL, a Hong Kong court can conduct a national security trial without a jury for reasons such as protecting national secrets or safeguarding the safety of jurors and their families, or when foreign factors are involved. However, the trial must be conducted by three judges in an open and transparent manner. In contrast, the UK’s National Security Act allows the court to ban public hearings at any time, making it difficult for outsiders to learn the details of the case. If the NSL was criticized for allowing trials without a jury in certain cases, shouldn’t the UK’s arrangement be criticized as well?

If we compare the UK’s National Security Act to the NSL, we can see that the former is more draconian. However, Western politicians and mainstream media who have criticized the NSL have fallen silent on the UK’s legislation. UK politicians have also forgotten their criticism of the NSL when they pushed through the National Security Act, showing their blatant double standards.

The author is a member of the Legislative Council.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.