I HAVE read the Sunday Morning Post of September 26, 1993, and found with concern your paper had misquoted me. As one of the co-conveners of the Legal Sub-Committee of the Preliminary Working Committee for the SAR Preparatory Committee, the duty of informing the press after our sub-committee's recent meeting in Beijing fell on me. I had not said that ''the Bill of Rights (Ordinance) contradicted the Basic Law'' as reported in your paper. On the contrary, I told the press that I had examined the provisions of the Bill of Rights Ordinance and had compared them with various articles of the Government on Civil and Political Rights as well as with the Basic Law, Common Law and other ordinances of Hong Kong. I further said that I had found the Basic Law, together with the Common Law and other Hong Kong ordinances, enacted before the promulgation of the Bill of Rights Ordinance covered all the provisions of the Bill of Rights Ordinance. The only exception of the provision therein is for all other Hong Kong ordinances to be interpreted within the letter and spirit of that Ordinance, which provision is unprecedented in Hong Kong legislations. I told the press that it would be submitted to the General Committee for the Bill of Rights Ordinance, among other ordinances, to be examined - and that it would possibly be amended, if necessary. Its amendment is for the proper authority to decide in future. I personally, nor even the sub-committee, cannot avail myself of the power to dictate what is or is not to be done. SIMON LI FOOK-SEAN Hong Kong The Sunday Morning Post responds: Mr Li's remarks were open to interpretation, and our interpretation was the same as that carried by a number of other newspapers.