'Article 23 bill clearer than similar overseas laws'
Executive councillor and senior counsel Ronny Tong on Friday said the bill on Article 23 national security legislation has clearer and more detailed security definitions compared with overseas jurisdictions. For example, he said the Hong Kong bill is clearer with regards to defining an external force compared with the security laws in the United Kingdom. "At least I think people now know that if they are part of a foreign government at different levels, a member of a political party or private enterprises which is accustomed to following direction or control of such government departments or authorities, then they would be regarded as a foreign force," Tong told RTHK. He noted that the mere connection with such forces is not a crime, and the key is whether the person concerned has also committed illegal acts that endanger national security. Tong, who's also a former chairman of the Bar Association, said he thinks the bill also makes things clearer with regards to seditious intent, which would carry a maximum jail term of seven years compared with the existing two years. He noted there are a number of stipulations as to what would not constitute sedition. "You would find [in the bill] there's a clear provision to say that if the intention is to, for example, remove any hatred or animosity between the people of Hong Kong and the people in other regions of the mainland, then you will not be guilty of the offence of seditious intent," Tong told RTHK. The government has added a public interest defence with regards to disclosing state secrets, after receiving submissions, including those from the Bar Association and the Law Society, calling for this. Tong said while he's of the view that protecting national security trumps all public interests, he accepts that such a defence "would make people feel better and more calm".