| 4 July 2003
The Editor,
South China Morning Post
Dear Sir,
Response to Herald Tribune, 28 June 2003
I refer to the editorial which appeared on July 4
and would like to correct an error. You state that
under the proposals in the National Security Bill
any one who is a passive receiver of confidential
information could be prosecuted. This is simply not
the case. Receiving information is not an offence
either under the existing Official Secrets Ordinance
or under the amendments proposed in the Bill. The
relevant offences under the ordinance all involve
disclosure of limited categories of protected information
where that disclosure either causes damage or is
likely to cause damage.
Damage is defined and, depending on the category
of information, might include causing loss of life
to members of the armed forces or impeding the
detection of offenders.
|
