}
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 May 1988
1445
contravene article 19. We would be creating a very undesirable precedent during this very sensitive period in the history of Hong Kong. Further, we must not be blind to the possible consequences of such a law in that it may be the thin end of the wedge, since the same approach may be extended to other forms of the mass media in future.
Sir, if one freedom is violated today, then no freedom is safe tomorrow.
DR. LAM (in Cantonese): Sir, the purpose of legislation is to make sure that our citizens will comply with such legislation, and if we only take the law into account and do not comply with the law, then it is against the
purpose of any legislation. Similarly, the same logic applies to the proposals made by our two colleagues. If we do not use the words 'comply with' and merely use the term 'take into account', then can we, when necessary, achieve the necessary effect; this will be very questionable. On 6 May, the Bar Association wrote a letter to the Legal Adviser of OMELCO and it stated very clearly that if we took the term 'take into account', then the court would not be able to protect human rights.
Sir, after comparing what is said by our two hon. Colleagues, I think Mr. Martin LEE's amendment can more concretely protect the freedom of expression.
MR. PANG (in Cantonese): Thank you, Sir, for giving me the right to speak. Having studied Mr. YEUNG's and Mr. LEE's proposed amendments, and the reasons for their amendments, I feel that most Members are in favour of the spirit of article 19 of the International Covenant so as to maintain the freedom of expression in Hong Kong. That is the consensus. Since everyone here likes to see article 19 being complied with, then it seems that Mr. YEUNG PO-kwan's wording for the amendment has given rise to doubt among the legal profession, particularly the two legal organisations.
Mr. LEE's amendment is clearer requiring that the censor must comply with the International Covenant. I have heard Mr. YEUNG say that article 19 does not afford absolute freedom. There are still restrictions. Hong Kong is now in a very sensitive period, the Legislative Council must be prudent and careful, and must try its best not to take any action that might jeopardise the confidence of the people.
If we clearly decide that censors must comply with the International Covenant, then that would be conducive to public confidence. For that reason, I support Mr. LEE's proposal.
MR. SZETO (in Cantonese): Sir, I think that the amendment notified by Mr. Martin LEE is a sensible one. I pay tribute to his indomitable spirit and I will abstain from voting on the Bill.