4 November 2002

The Editor
Asian Wall Street Journal

Dear Sir,

Yeung Wai Hong (Ignorance is strength, October 25) misses one vital point in our proposals to protect national security in Hong Kong - that is, they comply fully with international human rights standards.

Under the proposals, existing laws on treason and sedition, modeled after those in the UK, have been substantially narrowed to focus on activities that truly endanger national security. It is therefore reasonable that some penalties have been adjusted to correspond with these more tightly defined offences.

Our proposed penalties are comparable with, or more lenient, than those in other countries. In the US, for example, 'unauthorized communication of classified information' may result in a 10-year jail term compared to a fiveyear term for the corresponding offence under our proposal.

It is rather deceptive to claim that the proposals carry an 'enormous expansion of police power'. The proposed investigative powers for offences against the state are in line with those for other serious offences such as drugs, gambling or corruption. Entry to private premises would still require a court order except under tightly-defined exigent situations set out in the proposals, where there is an imminent threat of grave criminal behaviour. The proposed Police powers are modest compared to those relating to national security in other countries.

Once again, I must reiterate that the civil liberties of Hong Kong people are protected by law and will be preserved.

Yours faithfully, ( Mrs Regina Ip ) Secretary for Security Hong Kong Special Administrative Region