The smart response to that question (not that he had the best political instinct to begin with, but...) would've been the same kind of non-answer Carrie Lam gives: we cherish Hong Kong's freedom of speech, et cetera.
But he didn't say that, and even he has to know that answering the way he did will ring alarm bells. Talking up the need for legislation to address homemade bombs and property destruction is one thing; curtailing political speech in the name of security is quite another.
So like in any democracy laws can be passed with majority, its the same for China.
Chinese legislature learned from the mistakes of USSR with perestroika and glasnost that until welfare and progress do not reach its population, it cannot have legitimacy. So they succeeded in it and USA cannot find a clear opening like USSR to break China. So they started firing guns on the shoulders of Hong Kong, Taiwan, India, Japan and other countries surrounding China, because the initial attempt did not succeed. In this game these countries will suffer immensely and USA will progress by selling them weapons and prop it's own economy.
Hopefully instead of questioning other country if every country look inward and secure to all its own people JUSTICE, social, economic and political; LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual, the world will be a better place.
You can argue that they didn't choose to be a British colony either, but nevertheless they were and many generations have now grown up in that system and internalized those values.
> If people who have passports of other country, they have a choice if they don't agree with this change
What about the millions who don't have second passports or any real option to leave? They have no legal avenue to effect change; are they just supposed to sit quietly and take whatever gets thrown at them?
Hong Kongers are like Beijinger or Shanghainese so if China legislature wants to enact security law for country, they need to consider whole China not specific city or province like any central government in most democracies (when it comes to national laws). Hong Kong being a territory of China what matters is the majority of Chinese support and in this case overwhelming number support this action. If Chinese National in Hong Kong (i.e. Hong Kongers) are in doubt can do China countrywide survey and understand the national pulse.
> who don’t have second passports.
Live the way minority live in most commonwealth democratic countries. Unless these minority go out to fight till end (like Kashmiris are fighting Indian government unilateral actions), which I doubt any is willing to do, my guess is most can look for asylum as option in countries which support their cause, I believe Taiwan already offered (only risk is their founding fathers also consider Taiwan as one China, so may be it might lead to conflict in future).
But this is not exactly his quote when you read further than the first paragraph:
"Asked if slogans like “end one-party rule” – which is often chanted at the June 4 vigil – would be allowed in future, Leung demurred, saying there’s no need to get into the nitty gritty of legal definitions at this point, as this could ‘affect public feelings’ about the coming legislation."
"He also said whether the vigil itself could fall foul of the law could depend on what participants do even after the gathering is over – saying that anything that involves activities that are ‘separatist in nature’ may well be banned even in other countries."
He evaded the question when asked about the "end one-party rule" slogans, and repeat the line "separatist" will be banned when ask about the vigil.
Do I believe "end one-party rule" slogan will cause problem? I think so, and I do not support arresting people for just yelling the "end one-party rule" slogan. But I would like to see the detail of the law before I draw any conclusion.