1420
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 May 1988
FILM CENSORSHIP BILL 1988
Resumption of debate on Second Reading (9 March 1988)
Question proposed.
MR. YEUNG: Sir, although the Film Censorship Bill 1988 was read for the First time in this Council on 9 March 1988, its history dates back to March 1987 when a Legislative Council ad hoc group was set up to examine a White Bill published by the Government to invite public views on the proposed three-tier film classification system and various measures to regularise control on the film industry. Our task appeared to be straightforward at first. But, as things turned out, the group found itself facing an increasingly complex assignment. I am most grateful to my colleagues in the group for the time and dedication they have devoted in the past 14 months to scrutinise this Bill, the Administration for its receptive attitude to suggestions made by the group, as well as the film industry for putting forward its invaluable views.
Given the complexity of the Bill, it will not be possible for me to deal with every aspect on which the group had focussed. I shall, therefore, attempt to concentrate only on the major areas. My colleagues speaking this afternoon will no doubt elaborate further on the remaining points.
The first major area concerns the censor's power to ban or excise a film on the ground that its exhibition would seriously damage Hong Kong's 'good relations with other territories'. Concern has been expressed that to retain this power would infringe upon freedom of expression and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It took a long time before consensus emerged on this issue. I am now happy to say that an amendment will be made to provide for express statutory recognition of the principle of expression enshrined in article 19 of the covenant. I shall deal with this aspect in detail in my speech moving the amendment in Committee.
In order to ensure that the board of review can function effectively as an appeal channel for film producers aggrieved by a censorship decision, the group has also looked carefully into the membership of the board. Specifically the group feels strongly that the board should be chaired by a non-official to highlight its independent role. This will, to a certain degree, enhance the safeguards available in the Bill to prevent abuse of power by the censor. The Administration is receptive to our proposal and a suitable provision has been made in the Bill.
The Bill provides for the Chief Secretary to 'direct' the board of review upon the request of an aggrieved person to reconsider a censorship decision. The group is concerned that the word 'direct' might give a false impression of there being undue interference by the Administration in the board's proceedings. Sharing the group's concern, the Administration has agreed to refine the