Page 56 - Preservation for the Documentation of Chinese Christianity

APPENDIX

Hong Kong Christian Council
Response to the National Security (Legislative Provisions)Bill
In December 2002 the Hong Kong Christian Council (HKCC) has responded to the Hong Kong SAR Security Bureau's
Consultation Document regarding implementation of Article 23 of the Basic Law. We therefore want to comment on the

National Security (Legislative Provisions) Bill.
1. Request for a White Bill denied
Along with large parts of the community the HKCC had urged the authorities to publish a White Bill in order to give
the public a chance to comment on the details of the proposed legislation before it went to the Legislative Council. We
deplore that the authorities have not published a White Bill The community has been deprived of the opportunity to provide
additional input into the proposed Bill.
2. Misprision of Treason
In the response to the Consultation Document the HKCC had requested that misprision of treason not be made a
statutory offence. We note with satisfaction that the Bill in Part 2 (Amendments to the Crimes Ordinance), section 2,
subsections (5) and (6) abolishes the common law offences of misprision of treason and of compounding treason.
3. Time Limits for Bringing Prosecution
As envisaged by the Consultation Document the Bill proposes to abolish sections 4(1) and 11(1) of the Crimes
Ordinance. Section 4(1) sets a time limit of 3 years after the offence has been committed for commencing prosecution for
treason. Section 11 (1) sets a limit of 6 months for commencing prosecution for sedition. We hold that it would be unfair to
bring prosecution for acts committed a long time ago under possibly different political circumstances. Furthermore the
abolition of time limits can turn the lasting threat of prosecution into a weapon of intimidation. We continue to be of the

opinion that the time limits for bringing prosecution should be retained.
4. Freedom of Expression
In the chapter on secession the Consultation Document promised adequate and effective safeguards to protect the
freedoms of demonstration and assembly as guaranteed in the Basic Law. Section 9D of Part 2 of the Bill offers some
protection for the freedom of expression. However the terms used in subsection (3) are vague and fall short of a clear
affirmation of the right to industrial action, demonstration and assembly. We are not reassured that these rights will be
adequately protected.
5. Investigation Power
Part IIA, section 18B of the Bill (Amendments to the Crimes Ordinance) proposes that a police officer of or above the
rank of assistant commissioner will have entry, search and seizure power in connection with suspected treason, subversion,
secession, sedition or seditious publications. In our response to the Consultation Document the HKCC requested that a
court warrant should be obtained in all those instances. We reiterate our original request.
6. Freedom of Information
We are worried about the existing section 6 of the Official Secrets Ordinance which makes it an offence for anyone
to retain for purposes prejudicial to China's or Hong Kong's interest any official document which he has no right to retain. No
proof is required but circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict a person for this offence.
We are also not satisfied with the existing section 18(3) of the Official Secrets Ordinance, which puts the responsibility
for deciding whether the disclosure of protected information will be damaging for national security or not on the individual

55