In a move that has raised concerns about the erosion of civil liberties in Hong Kong, the controversial Article 23 law came into effect on Friday. The law, also known as the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, was passed by Hong Kong's legislature in just 11 days, prompting critics to argue that proper deliberation was lacking.

The Article 23 law is aimed at supplementing the national security law imposed by Beijing on Hong Kong in 2020, which many claim has already undermined civil liberties in the city. Criticism of the new legislation stems from its broad and vague language, which some argue could have a greater impact on free expression in Hong Kong compared to the previous law.

Kevin Yam, a senior fellow at Georgetown University's Center for Asian Law and one of 13 overseas pro-democracy activists accused of national security offenses, expressed concerns about the Article 23 legislation. He highlighted the expansive nature of the law, stating that it creates crimes against nearly everything the government wishes to target.

Regina Ip, a senior Hong Kong official, defended the law, stating that its main objective is to update and modernize existing laws. Ip asserted that the law will have minimal impact on the majority of Hong Kong residents and will only target those with ill intent.

The law focuses on five types of crimes, including treason, insurrection, theft of state secrets and espionage, sabotage endangering national security, and external interference. Despite reassurances from officials, critics argue that the law could be manipulated to suppress dissent and further tighten control over Hong Kong.

The rushed adoption of the law has drawn international criticism. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken expressed concern over its implications for both the people of Hong Kong and U.S. citizens and companies operating there. The United Nations rights chief, Volker Türk, labeled the law as a regressive step for human rights in Hong Kong, particularly criticizing its provisions on external interference, which could deter citizens from engaging with international human rights organizations.

Additionally, the Article 23 law has raised questions about Hong Kong's future as an international business center. Coupled with uncertainties surrounding the Chinese economy and ongoing U.S.-China tensions, the law's impact on civil liberties could hinder Hong Kong's status as a global economic hub.

Stephen Roach, a senior research scholar at Yale Law School's Paul Tsai China Center, noted a sense of weariness among business people, students, and academics in Hong Kong since the 2019 anti-government protests. Roach's commentaries suggesting the decline of Hong Kong's importance as a financial hub have sparked attention and concern.

As the Article 23 law takes effect, observers are keeping a close eye on its implications for Hong Kong's civil liberties and its future as an international business center. Critics argue that the broad and vague language of the law could enable authorities to suppress dissent, while defenders maintain that the law is necessary for national security. The true extent of its impact remains to be seen.