Tsang's executive order is in response to a series of court cases thrown out by judges who ruled that law enforcement agencies had overstepped their legal bounds in electronic eavesdropping.

That initiated a Security Bureau review last month examining covert surveillance guidelines. The executive order now gives officers the authority to approve surveillance. The number of such officers will be designated at a later stage. The practical effect would be to put the decision to authorize surveillance in the hands of relatively few top police officers.

Tsang's critics responded by saying covert surveillance by authorities is still improper. ''The chief executive has made a huge mistake,'' said legislator Alan Leong at a hastily convened press conference at legislator Ronny Tong's chambers in Pacific Place.

Lawyer and legislator Audrey Eu and constitutional law expert Gladys Li said the executive order does not protect those rights because Tsang circumvented the Legislative Council.

They described the order as an abuse of the administration's powers because Article 30 of the Basic Law quotes verbatim the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which forbids any intrusions on privacy without proper legislation.

''This raises grave questions over how extensive surveillance has been over Hong Kong citizens,'' Li said. Tong and Eu emphasized that the administration has had years to amend existing laws and had authorized a private member's bill, called the Interception of Telecommunications Ordinance to regulate surveillance, in 1997. It was never signed.

''Precisely, restrictively, laws are enacted by the legislature, otherwise you can have an administration do away with human rights by doing what Donald Tsang is doing,'' Tong said.

While the surveillance provision does not violate the Basic Law, it infringes on civil and human rights, the lawyers said.

Simon Young, a law professor at Hong Kong University, questioned whether there were any legal changes after the order. ``The authorized surveillance would certainly [still] impinge on the privacy rights protected by both the Basic Law and Hong Kong Bill of Rights,'' Young said. He described the order as too vague, saying there is no judicial oversight of surveillance.

``We will soon see if the order really amounts to anything or whether the government is simply trying to buy time with a very lame response,'' he said.

In April, District Court Judge Fergal Sweeney ruled wiretapping illegal because the Basic Law prohibits infringement on individual privacy without legislation providing judicial oversight.

In July, District Court Deputy Judge Julia Livesey stayed proceedings in a bribery case when she learned that one of the defendants had been equipped with a bugging device so that officers of the Independent Commission Against Corruption could listen to a private conversation conducted with two lawyers at a restaurant.

Under the new order, law enforcement officers must apply to authorizing officers ranked above senior superintendent of police, who would weigh the application using protocol specific to the department.

``This is a framework in which law enforcement agencies can now conduct surveillance, and that must be a good thing,'' said Gerry Osborn, assistant director of operations at the ICAC.

ICAC spokeswoman Lana Wong said Tsang had acted appropriately. The lawyers' criticisms were unwarranted, she said.

The ICAC, the police, the Immigration Department and the Customs and Excise Department have surveillance guidelines in place that allow them to put the order in practice.

However, when asked last month to state the protocol for phone tapping, the law enforcement agencies declined, citing privacy concerns.

The Security Bureau reacted to claims made by lawyers late Friday.

``There is no question of the government bypassing Legco. As we have indicated clearly, the government intends to put the regulation of covert surveillance into legislative form, and we will consult Legco fully on our proposals as soon as practicable,'' it said in a press release.

The bureau also said Tsang made the decision clearly within the Basic Law.

``Although [executive orders] are not legislation, their constitutional basis under the Basic Law has been recognized by the court and the procedures promulgated by way of executive orders have been recognized as legal procedures,'' it said.

doug.crets@singtaonewscorp.com

wendy.leung@singtaonewscorp.com