7
of expression is stretching reason and logic to a point where it stands on very tenuous grounds. No press, no person in an orderly and democratic society should be permitted to commit acts which are prejudicial to the public good. And that is what
One must the proposed amended new Section 27 is all about. remember that is always the final guarantor the independent court. If the case is tried in the High Court, there is of course the judge and the jury.
Burden of proof, however, is a separate issue.
Members are aware that my colleague Mr Martin LEE, a Member of the Group, will also be moving an amendment to Section 27, which puts the burden of proof squarely on the Crown. I look forward to hearing his arguments.
Sir, it is said that politics is the art of
compromise. In fact, life itself is a compromise.
As a lawyer,
I am naturally not happy about shifting the burden of proof to the accused. In this particular case, the arguments are finely balanced. Having considered all the pros and cons, as a legislator, I am inclined to agree with the majority view. After all, 9 out of the 10 control provisions will be removed, and keeping only one provision for the time being should not cause any hardship or alarm. The existing provision has been in existence since 1951, and has not caused any problem nor posed any threat at all, nor has it been abused by the Government at any time during the last 36 years. To allow the two Bills to pass into law is a sensible and acceptable political compromise.
Sir, Hong Kong is fortunate to have a responsible and responsive press. In concluding this speech, I would like to pay tribute to their immense contribution to Hong Kong and its people. I am sure my colleagues and I are deeply conscious of the importance of a free press and freedom of speech. No doubt,
are all committed to the preservation and promotion of these important pillars of a free society. Any evidence of infringement of these or other freedoms will certainly be carefully examined by this Council.
0593S