(Clearwisdom.net May 6)

Honorable members of the National Security Law Committee,

The Hong Kong News Executives' Association (HKNEA) is very concerned about the draft of the National Security Bill published by the government. We are worried and disappointed that the government refused to adopt the news media's recommendation to include "public interest" as a justification to disclose national secrets without authorization. We are also disappointed that the government failed to introduce the measurement on the consequence of the crime of sedition, which can lead to one's guilty verdict based on intention only, without consideration of actual outcome.

After the draft of the National Security Bill was published, the HKNEA sent out a survey to news organizations to poll on the opinion among news media professionals. Among 409 returned questionnaires, more than 80% believe that the draft will impede press freedom. If the Legislative Council passes these laws, 60% believe that it will interfere with normal interviews, and 65% believe that it will create pressure to news reporting and selection.

The key results of the survey are:

1. 81% polled disagree with the government's refusal to allow excuse of "publicized secrets" or "public interests" as self-defense to the charge of "leaking state secrets."

2. 83% disagree with the draft's suggestion to criminalize people under the charge of sedition based on intention to instigate rebellion, even without results.

3. 53% believed that the draft's definition of the offense of handling seditious publication is almost identical to that of the crime of sedition. These people believe that there is no need to keep the charge of handling seditious publication.

4. 68% disagree or totally disagree with the draft's suggestion to remove the time limit on prosecuting crimes of treason and sedition.

5. 53% believed that although the government has modified the draft, there are still a lot of problems with the legislation. 26% believed that the government failed to make real compromise, and that the draft is not acceptable.

6. 62% hoped that the government would listen to people's opinion, yet 58% believed that the government would not listen. 66% hoped that the government would modify the provisions, yet 51% don't believe that the government will make any modifications.

The HKNEA strongly requests the government remain open-minded in legislation procedure, carefully consider and listen to the people's opinion, and proactively make necessary changes. We also hope that all parties in the Legislative Council thoroughly discuss the provisions. They should ensure that the legislation is able to protect the national security, conforms to the international human rights treaty, and guarantees the freedom of speech and freedom of press. We also hope that the government and the Legislative Council members protect Hong Kong citizen's well being and the key elements essential to Hong Kong's success. They should protect Hong Kong's human rights and freedom. We have sent the survey result to the Legislative Council members as reference.

The HKNEA also hopes that the government and the Legislative Council pay attention to the following points when discussing the National Security Bill, and to make modifications to ease the concerns of the media industry:

1. The draft suggests defining a new crime: forbid anyone from unauthorized release of official secrets obtained illegally. This suggestion has fundamentally changed the current "Regulation on Official Secrets." The current regulation is focused on restricting the public officers from leaking secrets, and those who are not public officers are restricted only when they are aware that the source of the secret comes from a public officer. The proposed draft infinitely expands the scope of leaking secrets. Even those who do not participate in stealing the secrets, but receive secrets and spread them can be indicted. This change dramatically lowers the threshold of prosecution and threatens the freedom of press and information.

2. In order to remain balanced between protecting official secrets and ensuring the freedom of speech and freedom of press, we must allow the defendant to use public interest as self-defense. For instance, Item 30 in the current "Regulation on Preventing Bribery" states that it is counted as a "reasonable argument" if leaking the ICAC's investing secret is to disclose the government officials' violation of the law or abuse of power, or to warn the public on threats of life and property. [ICAC - Independent Commission Against Corruption] This item is clearly defined and therefore should be adopted. In addition, after a secret has been publicized, we should assume that further distribution of such secret is not harmful.

3. There is no measurement on the consequence of the crime of sedition. Unsuccessful instigation can also be criminalized. This loophole will damage freedom of speech. The definition of the crime should include the strong possibility of leading to others to rebel.

4. The definition of the offense of handling seditious publication is almost identical to crime of sedition. We believe it's unnecessary to include the crime of handling seditious publication.

5. The current laws rule that the crime of sedition must be tried in 6 months, but the draft of the National Security Bill suggests removing this time limit. We believe that the time limit should remain, otherwise the media industry is concerned about delayed retaliation, which will harm news interviewing and reporting.

Respectfully yours,

Hong Kong News Executives' Association