Legal professionals said the amendments were an improvement but the laws should never have been changed in the first place.
Bar Council member Philip Dykes said that although national security was narrowly defined, the Chief Executive-designate's office had not explained how rallies could pose a threat to China's territorial integrity and independence.
'There is still no material to justify why it is necessary to make these changes,' he said.
Former president of the Law Society Christopher Chan Cheuk described the proposals as improved.
'I am happy they have considered our proposals rather than just putting up a facade,' he said.
But Mr Chan was concerned the proposal on registration of societies had not been dropped, as the society had recommended.