CONFIDENTIAL
Council or that similar provision to that
effect should be included in the Ordinance.
Subject to this point and to clarification on
a further point mentioned below, I would see
no legal objection to the proposed Order in
Council or to the Ordinance, provided Section
4(2) of the latter were amended by restricting
it to broadcasts made from a place in Hong Kong
and provided Section 4(4) was omitted.
9.
However, I
A further matter which requires
consideration is the fact that a member of the
Executive Council, Mr. Clague, is understood to
have a substantial interest in Hong Kong
Television Broadcasts Ltd., which stands to
gain from the proposed legislation as it
affects television broadcasts.
would not wish to withhold approval to the
legislation by reason of this fact alone,
provided you can assure me that Mr. Clague
took no part in the Council's deliberations
and that the fact that he was a member of the
Council did not influence them in arriving at
their decision that the copyright legislation
should give Hong Kong Television Broadcasts
Ltd., a copyright in their programme.
10.
It is understood that, in exercise of
the power conferred by Section 34(4) of the
Telecommunications Ordinance (CAP: 106) to
revoke a licence if the Governor considers
that the public interest so requires, it is
intended to revoke Rediffusion's licence and
to grant them a new one. If this is done
No. Claque's interest is ก..
well known to the Governa. It would be surprising
if
should the read
}
arise, he did not insupt on Mr. Claque with drausm The way
تا
анг
rouch Mis
is therefore not to ask for
but for
confirination Imal the right thing was clone,
I do not 12mb we can possibly ask for
This assurance. Gov. is
The
no position to know what Ar Claque
might get up to outside The Cormeil Chamber
CONFIDENTIAL
without/
NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN
z