• It appeared as amicus curiae before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in a successful challenge to compul- sory licensing of journalists by Costa Rica.
• The WPFC has completed close to 100 helpful projector news media and journalism schools in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, including training missions, provision of equipment, consultancies and handbooks for journalists.
All of the WPC's funds come from non-governmental media sources. The WPFC's principal office is in Washington, D.C.
ATTACHMENT C
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, June 17, 1987 (Hong Kong)
This delegation representing the World Press Freedom Committee and other free press world organisations in 40 countries (see attached), went to Hong Kong to discuss the recently amended law relating to the press.
We applaud the decision of Hong Kong to repeal a wide range of repressive legislation from a bygone era.
Nevertheless, we regret that it has re-defined—and thus spotlighted a highly restrictive and ambiguous power to prosecute the media under the criminal law for the publica- tion of "false news likely to alarm the public or disturb public order", thus threatening freedom of expression.
We were disturbed to learn that the Government of Hong Kong justifies the retention of this special restriction upon freedom of publication and of speech by the defence that Hong Kong is a very small place with a large and concentrated population among which rumour could spread very fast with the most damaging effect on social stability and economic prosperity. We were particularly disturbed to hear this ar- gument from the administration of a territory which has, in practice, enjoyed all the benefits of a free press for at least a generation. Our concern is with the risk of abuse inherent in such power and we are not persuaded by assurances to the contrary.
We are bound to say that the special circumstances argu- ment is one that we have heard in countries that pay no heed to the basic human right of free expression. We express the hope, and the hope is reinforced by our discussions with the Governor of Hong Kong, with the Attorney General and with Mr. Peter Tsao and Mrs. Irene Yau, that this hastily crafted amendment will be reversed. Nothing will restore interna- tional confidence in the intentions and assurances of the government responsible for the future of this territory than
12
13
Dago m
such a reaffirmation of Hong Kong's long standing traditions of a free press which has been looked upon as a model for Asia. In our view such reaffirmation would be more in line with the principles of the Joint Declaration on the future of Kong between the Government of Great Britain and the People's Republic of China.
Leonard H. Marks, Chairman
George Chaplin Cushrow R. Irani
McGregor of Durris
14
ige Tu
ATTACHMENT D
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, June 19, 1987 (Singapore)
This delegation, representing the World Press Freedom Committee, and other free-press world organizations in 40 countries (see attachment), has come to Singapore seeking constructive discussion of, and early relief from, official re- strictions on a free flow of information.
We affirm freedom of expression as a universal human right. We recognize a free press as an essential bulwark of all other freedoms.
Repressive measures against publication and distribution are contagious. Censorships or other curbs in one country provide encouragement in others to suppress or manipulate the media.
Singapore's image as a dynamic nation with impressive economic growth and a highly literate population is sadly tarnished by a curbing of the circulation of publications with whose exercise of editorial prerogatives the government dis- agrees.
With Singapore developing a stronger participation in the world economy, such repressive action has international sig- nificance. This is evident in the considerable concern over Singapore's action wherever a free press exists.
Freedom of the press belongs less to the press than to the people. It is as much the right to be informed as to publish. To deny that right is unworthy of a country of Singapore's stat-
ure.
To deny even one reader access to a publication constitutes censorship. In current cases, thousands of readers are being so denied. The harm is more to the reader—which is to say, the public-than to the publication.
This is a paradox in Singapore, which properly prides itself on being a regional publishing center, with modern printing facilities.
15