ARTICLE 23 ON SEDITIOUS PUBLICATIONS THREATENS FREE EXPRESSION

I am concerned with the effects of the proposed national security law on freedom of expression and wish to add to the Article 23 debate and Margaret Ng Ngoi-yee's analysis ('Why Hong Kong's freedom of information is at risk', South China Morning Post, March 12).

One of the most worrying sections proposed is section 9C ('Handling seditious publication'), which states that it is an offence punishable by seven years' imprisonment and a fine of $500,000 to publish material that is 'likely to cause the commission of...treason...subversion...secession'.

Note the use of the word 'likely' rather than 'most likely' or 'can reasonably be viewed as very likely to cause the commission'.

While there are clauses in the Bill that seek to play down the threat it poses to freedom of expression, they are largely useless. Such is the effect of sections 9B and D.

Section 9D(1) states that 'a person shall not, by reason only that he does a prescribed act, be regarded as inciting others to commit ... treason ... subver-sion ... or secession, or engage in violent public disorder that would seriously endanger the stability of the [PRC]'.

Section 9D(2) is similar in effect and it too refers to a 'prescribed act'.

The effect of 9D is that those who have done acts mentioned in Section 9 and where those acts fall under the list of prescribed acts, are not guilty.