For most of the past year the government has insisted that passing the bill is of vital importance, with Mr Tung even talking of a 'divine duty' to protect national security. This all changed when half a million people took to the streets on July 1, and the government lost support in the Legislative Council. Suddenly, listening to the people became the prevailing political philosophy of the Tung administration.

So we should not be surprised that one of the two reasons Mr Tung put forward for shelving the bill is the need to consult extensively with the people. This is what the government should have been doing all along. When the initial proposals were released last September, a mere three months was considered long enough for public debate. Now, no amount of time is too much. It is good to see that the government has learned this lesson. Setting a deadline for the passing of the bill would undermine the consultation process. As much time should be taken as is needed to win support for the proposed bill.

Left in limbo

But Mr Tung has gone further. The whole process has been left in limbo. While there is merit in formulating a new blueprint for the bill, the government should be proceeding with the consultation. As it has constantly, and correctly, reminded us, Hong Kong has a constitutional duty to pass the legislation in order to comply with Article 23 of the Basic Law.

The second reason put forward by Mr Tung is that we need to 'concentrate our efforts to revitalise the economy'. Yet, strangely, this was the argument he used before July 1 for pressing on with the bill. It hardly needs stating the economy should be the government's priority. But this is no reason to put off complying with a constitutional duty. Why can't they be dealt with at the same time?

Mr Tung did not mention what are likely to be the real reasons for wanting to delay the process. There appears to have been a gradual realisation that it might well be in the government's best interests to do so. The deferral will help its strongest political allies, the Democratic Alliance for Betterment of Hong Kong. The party's popularity has been seriously damaged as a result of its staunch support for pushing through the bill. No wonder the DAB's chief, Tsang Yok-sing, wants the National Security Bill issue put on the back-burner until after next year's Legco elections. Delaying will also relieve much of the pressure on Mr Tung himself. The attitude of the central government is also important. State councillor Tang Jiaxuan made it clear yesterday that Article 23 provides that the Hong Kong government will pass national security legislation 'on its own', underscoring Beijing's position that the timing and the content of the bill is a matter for Hong Kong. The central government is also stressing the need for stability in Hong Kong to help the economy recover - and the Article 23 controversy is a cause of potential instability. But while Mr Tung is not under pressure to move quickly, he knows the bill cannot be put off for ever. The best way to proceed is to start a new consultation exercise with the aim of legislating as soon as the community understands and accepts the laws being proposed.

Welcome step

The chief executive has taken a welcome first step by announcing that the bill before the Legislative Council will be withdrawn. Until yesterday, it had seemed the intention was still to proceed on the basis of that document. Removing it will help make a break from the past. New proposals can now be put forward, after taking into account the public's views. It will provide a stronger foundation for the new consultation exercise. The possibility of publishing a white bill, to set out the precise wording of what is intended as part of the consultation process, is now also being considered. The refusal to take such a step during the first consultation exercise was a critical factor in causing public concern and suspicion.

This time, the government should also be careful not to go beyond what is actually required by Article 23, which amounts to little more than introducing new crimes of subversion and secession. But the opportunity should still be taken to modernise - and liberalise - the existing national security legislation. This is the way in which to win public support.

It will require the government both to listen and then to take hard decisions about which views to ultimately take on board, and which to reject. Sharp political skills will be required to avoid the whole issue descending again into a fiasco.

The problem with Mr Tung's announcement yesterday, whatever the real reasons behind it, is that it gives the impression that he is keen to wash his hands of the whole issue. It gives rise to the perception that the new approach to running Hong Kong will involve listening to the public - and then shying away from any policy which raises difficulties and might give rise to strong voices of dissent.

Strong backbone

If the result of the July 1 demonstration is to be that the government is even less reluctant than in the past to take difficult decisions, then Hong Kong is in trouble. We should not allow the encouraging economic rebound from Sars to distract us from the challenges that lie ahead. Support from the mainland has helped boost confidence, but the structural problems remain. Convincing the community to accept a broader-based tax regime and the spending cuts needed to tackle the deficit will require a strong backbone. So will a host of other policy initiatives, from education reform and a shake-up of the health service to improving the environment. Then there is the question of further political reform.

We believe the time is right to go ahead with Article 23, and to do it properly. Passing the bill will take time and the public consultation should not be unduly delayed. Who, however, would put money on Mr Tung's revisiting Article 23 at all?