“But if you show it to people visiting your place from time to time and say ‘It is different now. What was said before is true’, then you may be committing an offence with seditious intention as you are using it to achieve subversion or other unlawful purposes.”

As it happened: Hong Kong security bill readings advance, meetings set for weekend

Tong stressed an individual’s actions would only be considered illegal if they were harbouring unlawful intent, but they would have to defend themselves in court.

Under the bill, anyone in possession of a publication with seditious intent without a reasonable excuse would commit an offence and face three years in jail.

Secretary for Security Chris Tang Ping-keung said last Saturday those who collected copies of Apple Daily might need to invoke the reasonable excuse clause in the bill as a defence and provide reasons to show they had no intention of using them for incitement.

A government counsel also said an old copy of the newspaper might still be ruled as being seditious in future trials regardless of when it was published.

Apple Daily founder Jimmy Lai Chee-ying is on trial facing charges of conspiracy to print and distribute seditious publications, as well as collusion with foreign forces.

Top government adviser Tong said the same principle would apply to the democratic camp’s propaganda materials that opposed the government, as well as mementoes from the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, a group that held regular candlelight vigils before its dissolution in 2021 to mark the anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown.

“If you have a Goddess of Democracy statue at home, it is fine to keep it for memory. But if you bring it around and say you want to overthrow the Communist Party and end one-party rule, then you may be in trouble,” Tong said.

He appealed to the public to dispose of or conceal such items to avoid being caught in a compromising position.

The security bill also bans the disclosure of state secrets, but there is a public interest defence that allows revealing such information if the purpose is to report that the government’s performance is “seriously affected” or there is “a serious threat” to public order, safety or health.

Tong said the government might refrain from disclosing certain information to avoid being exploited by foreign countries that could harm national interests, while whistle-blowers could only defend revealing state secrets if the situation being disclosed involved breaking the law and the constitution.

He admitted that the offence could pose certain limitations on the media, but said that industry professionals should use their “common sense” to judge whether the information was confidential and cited examples related to military and diplomacy matters.

Hong Kong adds public interest defence for state secret crimes to Article 23 bill

A requirement in the proposed bill to disclose whether others are committing the offence of treason has triggered concerns among the religious sector about revealing confidential information during confessions.

Tong said such confidentiality was not recognised in the law and that individuals should use their own judgment on whether they should abide by the law or follow job requirements.

But he added that people should be aware that safeguarding national interests was the most important issue.

At least 40 per cent, or 73 out of 181 clauses, of the bill were scrutinised by lawmakers by Sunday, after it was gazetted and sped through its first and second readings in the legislature last Friday.

Lawmakers had scrutinised 73 out of 181 clauses of the bill as of Sunday.