30 September 2002

The Editor,
The Economist

Dear Sir,

I take issue with the disparaging remarks you make concerning the motives of the Hong Kong government and its lawyers. The criticisms in your two articles about Hong Kong's proposals for laws covering offences against the state ("Subverting Autocracy" and "Death by slow boiling, 28 September 2002) are not warranted. You correctly report that the proposed offences of treason, secession, sedition and subversion all require the commission of, or the incitement to commit, acts of violence against people, property or services. It is simply inaccurate to say, as you do, that under the proposals an organisation banned on the mainland could be banned "automatically" by Hong Kong if China decides it is a threat to national security. The power of proscribing organisations in Hong Kong could only be exercised if the Secretary for Security reasonably believed, in conformity with the standards of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, that it was necessary in the interests of national security or public safety or public order to ban that organisation. Moreover, the Secretary for Security's decision would be subject to appeal and review through the courts. Nor is there any reason to fear, as you suggest, that the proposals could be used to suppress journalistic or academic research. Even you grudgingly recognise that we have worked hard to ensure that the proposals complied strictly with international covenants protecting rights and freedoms.

Yours faithfully, James O'Neil Solicitor General (Acting) Hong Kong Special Administrative Region