A senior member of the Executive Council says the massive reaction to the Article 23 issue was due to post-1997 related jitters. Leung Chun-ying told the South China Morning Post that the government appreciated the public concern about national security legislation. 'The apprehension about Article 23 is the remnants of 1997-related apprehension, and [it] is the last one.' He said the administration should look for ways to better communicate with the public, but Hong Kong had to discharge its duty and enact the security law. Mr Leung said the July 1 protest was a reflection of people's discontent at a broader level. 'The implementation, particularly the communication with the public, of some policies and issues such as the handling of the Sars outbreak and Article 23 was unsatisfactory,' he said. Mr Leung said what was required under Article 23 of the Basic Law was a national security law, not Hong Kong security legislation. 'In enacting the law, we are discharging our duty to our country required by the Basic Law,' he said. 'In many countries, national security is something on a higher scale than other policy matters.'