************************************

Following is the transcript of the media session by the Secretary for Security, Mrs Regina Ip, today (June 24) at the Central Government Offices:

Reporter: US citizen Harry Wu's application for visa has been rejected again. We notice that you will not comment on individual cases but the US consulate spokesman has said that the consulate is deeply concerned about Hong Kong's decline to permit an entry to an American citizen and the use of denial of entry could limit freedom of association and restrict free flow of information here. What's your comment? Do you think there's some truth in his remarks?

Secretary for Security: I think US consulate fully recognizes that it's entirely within our power to control our borders and refusal of Mr. Wu's entry was done entirely in accordance with our laws.

Reporter: ...free flow of information and freedom of association?

Secretary for Security: I don't believe Mr Wu needs to be in Hong Kong to communicate with his friends here. There are plenty of ways for them to communicate by e-mail or telephone or otherwise. So I don't think this is a valid accusation.

Reporter: ...BL 23 as a top priority. And how are you going to make it more accountable to the public?

Secretary for Security: I didn't say it's the top priority, somebody mentioned that, you know. The timing for the enactment of legislation to implement BL 23 will be up to the Chief Executive. But definitely the HKSAR has a duty to implement BL 23 as we do have a duty to protect national security. Before we put forward any legislative proposals we will make sure that there is widespread consultation with the public and I can assure you that we also need to comply with BL 39 which says that all laws in Hong Kong must be consistent with the international Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Reporter: ...a timetable to legislate on article 23 legislation...?

Secretary for Security: We have no specific timetable.

Reporter: So how could the public expect from you now that you are a political appointee under the same title as Secretary for Security... or is it just all the same?

Secretary for Security: As I explained earlier, I have always been accountable to the public, but under the new system, the difference is that we will be employed on contract terms and if our performance falls significantly short of public expectation and there is widespread call for our resignation, I mean I am just speaking personally for myself, I don't think I would wish to hang on. So I think the new system will indeed make us more accountable for our actions.

Reporter: Could you explain why there would be some delay in the appointment of a permanent secretary in the Security Bureau? How long will the delay be?

Secretary for Security: Number one, we will have a permanent secretary post just like other people, but it will be pitched at D6 level which is a reasonable arrangement considering that we are not merging with any other bureaux and there will be no significant change to our schedule of responsibilities. The filling of the post we will need to discuss with the Civil Service Bureau and that may take a little while. So there might be a slight delay but we will make sure that our bureau will have the necessary complement of staff to implement all our duties.

(Please also refer to the Chinese portion)

End/Monday, June 24, 2002

NNNN