hong kong's independent legal system. this has prompted deep concern among members of hong kong's legal community, including the chairman of the hong kong bar association. let's bring up some quotes for you. now, the chairman of the hong kong bar association told reuters this, quote, this is the biggest shift since the handover and, quote, you can't be slightly independent, anymore than you can be slightly pregnant, you're either independent or you're not. now, this law will curb sedition, secession, foreign interference in terrorism. when it's passed it will also allow china's ministry of state security to establish themselves here in hong kong to enforce the law. there is still a lot we don't know about the legislation, we don't know about the scopes and the definitions of the crimes involved here. we also don't know the applicable punishments. we also don't know if this law will be applied retroactively. now, the central government authorities in beijing as well as the government here in hong kong support this legislation. they say that it's necessary to fill a security loophole. the chinese officials have said time and time again that the hong kong

law of hong kong which is merely it which sets out a constitution or arrangements for hong kong but the national people's congress is the highest of already in mainland china and the bar association has persisted and in persistent in ignoring these realities so the national people's congress can just sweep aside the basic laws it feels like the bar association says it would appear that the national people's congress has no power to the national security law that it's proposing. on the article 23 the n.p.c. has not swept away the powers of our our under the basic law the decision the decision of the n.p.c. the 7 point assertion in 2 of the points day urged the hong kong government to get on with and acting legislation locally on our own to fulfill our constitutional obligations you know our duty under article 3 it does not preclude baiting of origins from doing their own thing to protect national security certainly every country has a right to protect its security and territorial integrity let's look at what happened back in 2003 when you were security minister and you tried and failed to push through a security law against subversion and treason for hong kong it brought the peopl

welfare of hong kong being a part of the nation i see nothing wrong with that i wrong equate that with fattening independence up. you hold up a copy of the basic law but the hong kong bar association which knows a thing or 2 about law has what it calls a fundamental constitutional and legal concerns about this new law they point out that article $23.00 agreed by joint declaration says hong kong shall enact laws on its own to prohibit treason succession subversion having a law imposed security law imposed by beijing is not an acting laws on its own is it. well you better quote palling then why did the bar association did not support the trough national security legislation i championed back in 200 to try very hard to help hong kong to an act national security laws on our own why did they object to that and in the course of the public scrutiny i gave then many concessions now the awful trade you 3 imposes a constitutional duty on the us to prohibit certain national security over answers but it does not preclude the p.r.c. of origins from acting under their constitution the problem with our parcels here is that it ignores the laws of china only focuses on the basic law of hong kong w

. >> within hong kong, the bar association is now saying the chief executive's ability to appoint judgesicial independence of the city. are the benefits of this law for worth ofnment really the hit hong kong's reputation would take? >> again, without seeing the details, but from what i am told , the chief executive would appoint a panel of judges. it would still be up to the judiciary themselves to decide -- to assign different judges were different cases. -- that is not the case according to the chief executive herself. whether it is worth it, national security is important. hong kong has failed in the last 23 years. china has delegated authorities to legislate national security law. in 23 years, the opposition have tried every effort to stall the process. last year, basically, they gave china no-confidence hong kong can continue without their legislation. unfortunately, it is what it is. the national security law is common in every country. why should hong kong have one? >> you have said you expected this law to have a deterrent effect. it will not be used as much. right now you are sa

isn't qualified to be able to do that and there's been a lot of concern raised by the bar association here in hong kong they have expressed very very grave concerns about kerry lam really playing such a controversial role we know that this law is going to mean that chinese security agents will now be able to operate legally here in hong kong of course they've probably been operating here illegally for many many years and of course that china is going to it said be able to establish a security bureau here in hong kong to gather intelligence now all of this amounts to really the most serious development in hong kong since the handover 23 years ago tomorrow and yes there is unease among some people but there are plenty of people particularly in the business sector who welcome this war they say after more than a year of violent unrest they welcome anything that will bring a measure of stability because remember at the moment hong. kong's economy really is hurting and the covert coronavirus crisis has really compounded all of that so they hope that this will bring much needed stability and that's why we're