that the decision made was laughable.
There was a watershed.
Before
2
14 | 2up 3
a certain period of time we banned only films made in China, and then after that period only films made in Taiwan were banned.
During
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
814.
15
16
17
18
19
Se 20
21
22
23
24
2.5
26
Sc 27
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2272☹+33
29
30
a certain period even documentaries on the celebration of the national day of PRC were banned. Since time immemorial China has been a
neighbouring country to Hong Kong. When such a film was banned the inited Kingdom
Government had already established formal diplomatic relationship with China. And the banning of such a documentary film has indeed damaged good relationships between Hong Kong and a neighbouring country. Why was such a film banned? People used good relationship as an excuse. What they have in mind is just the preference of a certain country. What kind of a standard is that?
31
34
36
The Chairman of the Central Advisory Commission of the
>
PRC, Mr. DENG Xiaoping said that after 1997 the Hong Kong citizens
can still criticize the Communist Party, and of course they can do so before 1997. I believe that the criticism mentioned is not just criticism in our hearts. Certainly that includes criticism verbally, in written form, and the criticism in sound and light, and that also includes criticism in newspapers, books, magazines, films, and Extelevisi
programmes. What broadmindedness and self-criticism did Mr. Deng
display when he said those words. I believe he meant what he said, and I believe that his words would be kept.
Criticism will certainly damage good relationships, but
he said he did not mind. So the clause about being prejudicial to Hong Kong and other countries is really contravening what he said. Actually, going against what he said is damaging our good relationship with Mr. Deng personally. When he said those words he wanted to boost
our confidence in the future, and if we go against these words, of course we will achieve the opposite effect.
It takes tremendous courage to introduce the concept of one country, two systems. And if we want to implement this great concept we would also need tremendous courage. What we need now is a further strengthening of our confidence so that we can face the future courageously.
We said that we would like this clause to be repealed. We are not really using this as a tool to shake the confidence of the