That very reason why it was not tabled in July 97 is because at that time Hong Kong was journeying into the unknown. No one was quite sure how things would work out. Assurances were not enough. People wanted proof that the promises would be honoured, and there would have been deep and widespread concern if laws on sedition and treason had been enacted at that time.

The past five years have shown that those assurances have been honoured. Hong Kong continues to enjoy its freedoms, protected by common law and guaranteed under its mini-constitution, the Basic Law. Therefore, this is the right time for the HKSAR government to do what is legally required of it, namely to enact laws to protect the fundamental interests of the state and protect national security.

Drafting Article 23 now, when everyone is confident of the city's autonomy, and society is safe and stable, is by far the wisest course of action. Laws drafted hastily in response to some crisis or other can be at worst, draconian, and even at best, are never the most moderate. We have only to look at the anti-terrorist laws tabled in the US after the September 11 terrorist attack to see the result of hasty legislation drafted under distressing or fearful circumstances.

Every country has some national security regulations set in place to protect its sovereignty and national safety. These laws are designed and regulated by the central government and local authorities have no authority to intervene. We should appreciate the opportunity that our own HKSAR government has been granted, in allowing it to draft the law on its own.

If our government is to prohibit acts against national security effectively and efficiently, it must have corresponding legislation and executive power as the basis for action.

The Liberal Party regards the consultation document outlining the government's proposal as comprehensive and detailed. So long as the new legislation continues to protect the existing liberties and rights of Hong Kong citizens, life should continue unchanged. It is vitally important that we should contribute to the process of consultation by voicing our concerns on concepts which might be perceived to affect our freedoms and rights.

Both press and public have raised many questions about particular sections of the proposed legislation. The strong opinions that have been expressed are entirely to be expected in a free society. This will help Legislative council members when they scrutinize the bill and will serve to remind them to keep a balance between national security and personal freedom.

The Liberal Party outlined its suggestions about amendments in the debate last week. We feel that certain phrases in the proposals, are presently too vague, for example in the matter of "levying war" and "theft of state secrets". These should be much more clearly defined.

In particular, the government should take into account the very real concerns about the free flow of information and freedom of the press. It goes without saying that if Hong Kong loses its cherished reputation as the only place in South East Asia where information is readily available and reliable, foreign business confidence will suffer a devastating blow, with possibly adverse consequences for economic growth and foreign investment.

The Government has on a number of occasions reassured the public that the way of life in Hong Kong will not be affected by its proposals. It is equally important for the Government to ensure that the way business is done here will in no way be affected. That investors can continue to do business in an open and predictable environment. The Liberal Party believes that this message must be spelt out loud and clear.

Understandably, concerns have been expressed by some businesses, including international banks and Small and Medium Enterprises, about if and how laws protecting national security will have an effect on their daily operations. The Liberal Party urges the Government to take every opportunity to clarify its position on such matters as: -whether doing business with Taiwanese who have certain political beliefs will amount to secession or subversion; -whether normal business dealings with overseas organizations will come under the proposed offence in relation to foreign political parties; and

-if a Hong Kong businessman comes into possession certain economic and business information which are classified sensitive in the Mainland, whether this will constitute an offence of theft of state secret under the proposals.

Nor will it serve the interests of this city if the press feels inhibited from doing its job as a watchdog of the government and a fearless commentator on society. These freedoms have made the city what it is.

We feel duty bound to caution that government must take great care to ensure that the freedom of the media is protected. Therefore the definition of "seditious information" has to be clearly defined. We also believe the offence of possessing seditious publications is too wide and in its present format could incriminate innocent citizens. We call for a thorough review with the objective of removing this clause.

There is also considerable concern about forceable entry by the police. The government is proposing to vest the authority for this action in any police superintendent. The Liberal Party believes that this power should be exercised sparingly and only under the most urgent circumstances. Even then it should only be authorized by the Commissioner of Police.

Prior to the introduction of the bill we would like to see a report containing the government's final drafting instructions and the preliminary drafting of the more controversial provisions, so that the public and the legal sector may be informed as to what views aired during the consultation period have been taken on board. In Hong Kong - unlike some other jurisdictions - a blue bill can still be amended. The Bar Association, Law Society and other organisations pressing for a white paper will be able to put forward their comments to the Legislative Council at that stage.

A white bill would entail complex and labyrinthine legal argument from which the general public would be excluded. It is extremely important that the debate surrounding a law as sensitive as Article 23 should be conducted in a way the ordinary citizen can fully understand.

Only if everyone is able to grasp the issues at stake, and follow the arguments and discussion can we ensure that the final drafting will be clear, unambiguous and acceptable to the mass of the people.

Close Window| Print this page