Among the new offences under the proposal was external interference, which would outlaw acts of using improper means in collaboration with an external force to, among other things, influence the central and local governments in formulating or executing any policy, interfere with the city’s elections or the work of the legislature.

During the question and answer session, Thomas Gnocchi, the head of the EU Office in Hong Kong and Macau, said it had conveyed its “significant concerns” about the legislation to the government and was particularly concerned about the offence of external interference.

Gnocchi asked that panellists comment on “broad definitions” in the area of the specific offence.

Ip conceded that the consultation document did not provide a definition for what an “external force” was, but emphasised that it clearly stated that “the conduct has to be improper” to constitute an offence.

Hong Kong needs to better explain security law to foreign businesses: CY Leung

Under the proposal, “using improper means” could include knowingly making material misrepresentations, the threat or use of violence, damaging property, damaging a person’s reputation or causing financial loss to a person.

Ip also argued that any journalist who talked to a foreign government or foreign political party about the situation in Hong Kong would not fall foul of the offence as long as they were “not spreading fake news or using deceptive means”.

Former chief executive Leung, now the vice-chairman of the country’s top political advisory body the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference said last week the government should have presented more facts to rebut criticism of the draft legislation and do more to explain it to foreign businesses.

Foreign business chambers and diplomats in Hong Kong have previously said they are concerned about risks to investment and potential enforcement standards that could affect their nationals, despite many of them showing public support for the proposed legislation.

Funding cuts, cancelled shows leave Hong Kong arts groups unsure about ‘red lines’

Fellow panellist Ronson Chan Ron-sing, the head of the Hong Kong Journalists Association, said he was worried that the current proposal would “change the atmosphere” in the city.

Chan said the association had polled their members and found that 75 per cent of respondents believed the legislation would have a “negative effect” on their work.

One major concern was whether journalists would accidentally breach proposed offences on the publishing of state secrets. He also worried that Hong Kong residents would become less willing to speak with foreign media or other authorities.

Chan added he hoped the government would offer clearer definitions in the final draft of the legislation.

New Hong Kong national security law ‘defensive rather than offensive’: Lam

Professor Simon Young Ngai-man, a legal expert at the University of Hong Kong, admitted that some of the “improper means” – such as causing financial losses to a person – outlined in the document as it related to external interference were “broad” in scope.

“I think maybe there is still some room to discuss its parameters,” he said.

Young acknowledged that many of the proposals in the government paper had stated that one would only be held guilty if there were reasonable grounds to believe he or she had the intention to endanger national security, which Young said was a high threshold to prove wrongdoing.

Under the proposal, the unlawful possession, acquisition or disclosure of state secrets would be criminalised. Unlawful conduct would entail either knowing the information was a state secret, or believing it was a state secret with the intention to endanger national security.

“So as a criminal lawyer, when I see that, I’m happy because that’s the highest level of mens rea. It’s not easy to prove that,” he said. “That’s a very important safeguard.”