2
3
4
+ in
6
7
8
9
cop
10
डै
Cit
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2.5
сар
Caly 26
~ 2 2 2 227 2287☹m‡
29
MR SZETO WAH (in Cantonese): Sir, I support Mr. Martin Lee in his Motion, and that is that we should repeal section 3A(7) of the Film Censorship Regulations 1987. This stand is consistent with my stated stand within the in-house meeting and the ad hoc group meetings.
From the very beginning when we started discussion on this issue I expressed my opposition to any kind of political censorship
on films. In the past for many years our law has not given power to the government to censor films on political grounds, but this power has been abused by the authorities for many years. This might have been due to negligence in the beginning, but legal advice to the government has pointed out time and again that something must be done, because the government has still to implement the provisions in the guidelines without finding any remedial measures. Mistakes were made
one after another, and each was more serious than the last.
At this point in time when we cherish the rule of law in Hong Kong more and more the disclosure of this mistake, of course, would cause us to feel that this is most regrettable, shocking and alarming.
Do we have similar instances other than film censorship? All of the citizens in Hong Kong must really take caution to safe- guard the rule of law, which we cherish most.
As I said, mistakes were made one after another and each
was more serious than the last. I think such an attitude should be reprimanded. When the newspapers made the disclosure the government hastily introduced the 1987 Film Censorship Bill. Since we have to consult the public and amend the Bill, and we cannot pass the Bill within this session, the Film Censorship Regulations 1987 that we are discussing today is taken as an interim measure. Some Members think that since the Film Censorship Regulations 1987 was gazetted as a contingency measure there is no need to go into in-depth discussion. We should just pass it and then we should wait until the time when we come to the Bill before we discuss all of the details. I think 35 such an approach is wrong.
Even if this is a contingency measure,
30
31
32
33
34
36
it should not be passed at the expense of principles. Principles