The most baffling point of the national security law is that Hongkongers, the key stakeholders, were left completely uninformed of any details before being informed of its passage, which makes it absolutely unacceptable. If this is not authoritarian or totalitarian, tell me what is. Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor herself said she was not clear about the law as she didn’t have the details, yet she urged the public to support it before its passage. How could one show approval of something without knowing what it is? If this is not blind obedience, correct me. It is a pity the chief executive had no knowledge of something so crucial to the city and its people but understated its severity. She apparently did not evaluate the immediate impacts, imminent applications and far-reaching implications of the law at all, to say nothing of her subordinates who downplayed it and claimed only a minority would be affected. Is this short-sightedness or ignorance? How can the chief executive gain the trust of Hongkongers, whose frustration with her governance has reached breaking point? When even the publication of personal opinions can prompt prosecution , where is our “security”? The focus now is “national” security, which overrides personal security. While the freedoms of speech, publication and assembly are secured by the Basic Law, will Hongkongers still be able to exercise these when demonstrations continue to be banned? Taking to the streets is not just to voice our disagreement but our opinion, as well as showing mutual support and unity. I can hardly remember what the five demands are, but I will never forget the tremendously strong spirit of togetherness and integrity in the assemblies starting from June 9 last year. If one hasn’t experienced them, they can never truly sense how lovely and steadfast Hongkongers are, especially at critical times. This is the Lion Rock spirit that bonds us together. Long may it thrive and strengthen us in the face of looming challenges and unavoidable threats. The city won’t be dead if her people continue to strive. Helen Lo, Sham Shui Po Justice secretary worryingly bereft of answers During Justice Secretary Teresa Cheng Yeuk-wah’s press conference on July 1, she was not able to give clear answers to many of the questions asked of her. Among other things, she was asked about the death penalty under the new national security law for Hong Kong, what constitutes “hatred” and what the limits on protest banners are. These aren’t trivial “nice-to-have-answers-to” issues but ones causing an immense amount of alarm among many people. National security law: more questions than answers on Hong Kong’s freedoms It is not clear whether she didn’t answer because she didn’t know or because she hadn’t asked the mainland authorities the appropriate questions when she had the chance. If the secretary for justice doesn’t know the answer to these questions, how are the rest of us supposed to know what’s legal and what isn’t? When the dust has settled, we have to ask why it appears the justice secretary and her boss, knowing full well this law was incompatible with the common law, either didn’t do enough to influence the outcome to ensure it would be, or were just ignored by the mainland authorities. I’m pretty sure I know which it is. Lee Faulkner, Lamma