The Situation in Hong Kong
On March 13, 1987, the government of Hong Kong adopted a new Section 27 of the Public Order Ordinance which provides that:
"(1) Any person who publishes false news which is likely to cause alarm to the public or a section thereof or disturb public order shall be guilty of an offense and shall be liable-
(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine of $100,000 and to imprisonment for two years; and
(b) on summary conviction, to a fine of $30,000
and to imprisonment for six months.”
Under this legislation, a person charged with violation could defend himself by contending that he had reasonable grounds for believing that the news to which the charge relates was true. However, to do so might require divulging sources of the information contained in the news report.
The Section also provides that no prosecution shall be commenced without the consent of the Attorney General. Subsequent to the enactment of Section 27, the Attorney General issued guidelines which were designed to clarify the general terms of the legislation.
Summary of Hong Kong Discussions
The delegation met with Governor Sir David Wilson, At- torney General Michael Thomas, Peter Tsao, Secretary for Administrative Services and Information, and Mrs. Irene Yau, Director of Information Services. The delegation pointed out that Section 27 of the controversial Public Order Ordinance violates Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which provides that:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and ex- pression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regard- less of frontiers."
The government of Hong Kong justified its retention of this restriction by arguing that Hong Kong has a large and con- centrated population living in a very limited area and that under these circumstances, rumors described as "false news" could have a damaging effect on the social stability and economic prosperity of the island.
The delegation rejected this rationale as a justification for press restrictions and asserted that the restriction violates the basic human right of free expression. The delegation expressed the view that the repeal of this legislation would restore international confidence in the intentions and assur- ances of the government now responsible for the territory. Moreover, a repeal would be consistent with the principles of the joint declaration on the future of Hong Kong reached between the governments of Great Britain and the People's Republic of China.
The delegation was encouraged by the very constructive attitude of the officials and their willingness to consider seriously the implications of these restrictions. The delega- tion was assured that the legislation would be monitored during the coming months and that the matter would be. reexamined if it appeared that the concerns expressed were justified.
Before meeting with the governmental officials, there were extensive discussions with leading journalists in Hong Kong representing local and international publications. They pointed out that the legislation already has had a "chilling effect" on their coverage of news events and has resulted in self-censorship incompatible with a free and responsible press. This impression was relayed to the governmental offi- cials and the hope expressed that this restrictive effect would be seriously considered in any review that was undertaken. At the conclusion of its visit, the delegation held a press conference at which time it released a statement of its conclu- sions (Attachment C).
The Situation in Singapore
On May 5, 1986, the Singapore government adopted an amendment to the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act of 1974. This amendment gave the Minister of Information the power to restrict the sale or distribution of a foreign publica- tion to such numbers of copies as he thinks fit, and to require that copies be marked in such manner as he may direct.
a. Dispute with Time Magazine
In the Asian edition of September 8, 1986, Time published an article entitled "Silencing the Dis- senters" with reference to an opposition member of Parliament who had been found quilty by Singapore courts on charges of dispos- ing of assets to defraud creditors and giving
5