12 October 2002

The Editor
Asian Wall Street Journal

Dear Sir,

Cliff Bale is wrong to claim that proposals on national security laws for Hong Kong could have a 'devastating effect on media freedom' (Hong Kong Squeezes the Press, Asian Wall Street Journal, October 10).

What Mr Bale fails to mention is that the proposed offences of secession and subversion will both involve the levying of war, the use of threat or force, or criminal action which falls within the definition of 'serious lawful means' (offences akin to terrorism). None of these elements can be the result merely of words. Therefore, freedom of speech is not touched.

In regards to the theft of 'state secrets', the existing and proposed offences are extremely narrowly drawn and in large part taken from the Official Secrets Ordinance based on UK legislation.

Only limited categories of information are protected and it is up to our courts to decide whether such information falls within those categories. Neither the Central Government nor the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government (HKSARG) can simply classify a document 'secret' and thus claim protection under the law.

As I have said before, and will keep repeating, the HKSARG's proposals to implement Article 23 of the Basic Law will not have any impact on the fundamental freedom of expression or the freedom of the press as currently enjoyed. We understand perfectly well the importance of a free and unfettered media to Hong Kong's long-term success and we have vowed time and again to protect that vital element of our society.

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

Back