The SAR government on Tuesday slammed a British newspaper over a story suggesting people could be imprisoned for keeping old copies of newspapers, while The Washington Post was criticised for "misleading and inappropriate remarks" in an editorial it published.

A government spokesperson accused The Times of misleading people that possession of certain old newspapers would lead to imprisonment as well as "generating panic among members of the public".

The report's headline - "Hongkongers to be jailed for keeping old newspapers" - was "completely false", the spokesperson added.

The government also said only individuals who possess a publication that has a seditious intention, without a reasonable excuse, would be deemed to have committed the offence, according to the proposed national security legislation under Article 23 of the Basic Law.

"Whether a publication has a seditious intention will have to be determined after all relevant circumstances are taken into consideration, including the context and purpose of the publication. Relevant provisions of the [national security bill] also stipulate circumstances that do not constitute a seditious intention," the spokesperson said.

"As regards the offence of possessing a publication with a seditious intention, the prosecution has to prove that the defendant possesses the publication concerned without reasonable excuse before the defendant may be convicted by the court. It is not possible for a person who does not know that the publication concerned has a seditious intention to be convicted."

Separately, Secretary for Security Chris Tang said in a letter to The Washington Post on Monday evening that the government strongly opposed and condemned the "misleading and inappropriate remarks" written by the newspaper's editorial board.

Tang said the editorial - "With new security law, Hong Kong doubles down on repression" - had neglected to mention the city’s constitutional duty to enact the domestic security legislation.

"The HKSAR will continue to resolutely discharge the responsibility of safeguarding national security, and effectively prevent, suppress and impose punishment for acts and activities that endanger national security in accordance with the law, while safeguarding the rights and freedoms enjoyed by Hong Kong people in accordance with the law," he wrote.

The editorial also suggested that the release of the 47 pro-democracy figures in a subversion trial was "the only plausible, credible verdict", to which the minister said was "a blatant interference with the administration of justice".