THE post-handover administration might give a definition of national security as it relates to civil rights curbs, says Secretary of Justice-designate Elsie Leung Oi-sie. The move was to clear up 'misunderstandings' over the meaning of the concept, she said yesterday. Proposed changes to the Societies and Public Order ordinances allow curbs on political groups and protests on the grounds of national security. But there are different interpretations of the term. Attorney-General Jeremy Mathews said on Friday that national security applied only if territorial integrity was threatened by force. But Ms Leung said national security could be applied to prohibit activities considered to endanger the peace and stability of the community or undermine territorial integrity, national independence and sovereignty. 'Different interpretations are very common in courts. After all Mr Mathews is only giving his own opinion. 'Though both of us are referring to the UN's . . . Universal Declaration of Human Rights, he uses the first paragraph and I use the last one to explain the concept,' she said. Ms Leung said a clear definition would remove unnecessary worries and fears. She rejected suggestions the different interpretations by her and Mr Mathews would confuse the public. She said activists would be forbidden to sleep on the streets during demonstrations or burn car tyres under proposed amendments. 'These kinds of activities are forbidden now. 'They will also be forbidden after July 1.' She also rejected Mr Mathews' statement that the capacity for people to challenge a police ban on grounds of national security through judicial review would be extremely limited. 'I disagree with Mr Mathews on this point because if the administration has abused its power in excising this concept, the judiciary should also monitor the Government and make a fair judgment,' she said. Ms Leung also labelled as untrue the criticism that the consultation on the civil rights amendment was 'fake'. She said most opinions collected during the consultation agreed that the principles of the consultation should not be changed. 'However, that doesn't mean none of the provisions of the amendments introduced would be changed,' she said.