}}
CONFIDENTIAL
ON SECTION 17D, THEY SAID IT WAS DIFFICULT TO DEFINE INTENTIONAL DISREPSECT AND FELT IT COULD BE USED TO LIMIT WHAT THE MEDIA COULD AND COULD NOT PUBLISH.
IN CONCLUSION, THEY SAID IT WAS IRONIC THAT THE COUNCIL SHOULD BE GRANTED FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND DEBATE, WHILE THE SAME FREEDOM WAS DENIED TO THE MEDIA OR PRIVATE CITIZENS GENERALLY.
STRESSING THAT THE MEDIA WAS ACTING AS A WATCHDOG ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC, THEY SAID IT SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO SCRUTINISE THE WORKINGS OF THE COUNCIL AND ITS COMMITTEES.
THIS ROLE COULD BE CURTAILED BY THE ABOVE MENTIONED SECTIONS OF THE BILL, THEY SAID.
REPLYING, MISS TAM SAID THERE WAS A CHECK IN THAT ALL PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES UNDER THE BILL WOULD REQUIRE THE
CONSENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
SHE PROMISED TO CONSIDER THE ASSOCIATIONS'S VIEWS, AND TO DISCUSS THEM WITH THE ADMINISTRATION.''
ENDS
HADDON-CAVE
LIMITED
HKD
FED
PS/MR LUCE
MR WILSON
COPIES TO:
MR FIFOOT, LEGAL ADVISERS
2
CONFIDENTIAL