4 November 2002

The Editor
Asian Wall Street Journal

Dear Sir,

It is untrue to claim that the Hong Kong SAR Government is brushing aside concerns about proposals to implement national security laws under Article 23 of our constitution, the Basic Law (Hong Kong's dangerous attitude, October 30).

Far from brushing aside concerns we are encouraging residents to air their views. We are, in fact, just over one month into a three-month consultation exercise that has so far attracted more than 250 submissions. During this time government officials have taken part in more than 50 public consultation meetings and forums and responded on a daily basis to questions and enquiries about our proposals. We remain committed to doing so and ready to engage in reasoned and informed debate. The enabling legislation, when introduced, will be fully and, I have no doubt, vigorously debated by lawmakers. During that stage amendments may be proposed and voted on in the same way as any other bill put before the Legislative Council. As with the Asian Wall Street Journal's other editorials on this subject, a rather alarmist approach has been taken that neglects to acknowledge the fact that our proposals draw largely on existing laws that will be narrowed considerably in scope.

Proposed police 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, where there is an imminent threat of grave criminal behaviour.

There is no question of extending Mainland definitions of 'state secrets' to Hong Kong. We have proposed to retain the existing Official Secrets Ordinance which is based on UK law. It is for Hong Kong courts to determine in accordance with Hong Kong laws and common law jurisprudence, whether any information belongs to a protected category, and whether any unauthorized disclosure of such information constitute a ¡¥damaging disclosure' and an offence.

Appeals to courts in relation to national security matters will not be restricted. It is true that a tribunal will rule on questions of fact relating to whether an organization should be banned in Hong Kong. But any executive decision in Hong Kong is automatically subject to judicial review. And, as you correctly state, points of law on whether an organization should be proscribed will be argued in court.

Finally, I must once again stress that acts of violence, or the threat of violence, or conduct of serious unlawful means would be required before most of the proposed offences are committed. The definition of 'serious unlawful means' is drawn from existing laws and relates to behaviour akin to terrorism or terrorist activities. I certainly believe that the usual reporting duties carried out by journalists in Hong Kong would rarely, if ever, fall into this category.

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