1446
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 May 1988
Political censorship has all along been the focus of the most heated debate. To safeguard the freedom of speech, from the very beginning, I have been objecting to the idea of censoring films politically, and I have been fighting for the deletion of the 'damage good relations with other territories' clause since it amounts to political censorship.
Britain is a State Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The part of the covenant on freedom of speech is applicable to Hong Kong. If the provision under the covenant is to be implemented, then the clause I mentioned just now in the Bill, should be deleted, but the Government still refuses to admit that the aforesaid clause goes against the spirit of the International Covenant and rejected outright any requests for its deletion. The stubborn attitude of the Government is no different from that when the Public Order (Amendment) Bill steamrolled through this Council. I fought hard for the deletion of the clause for very long, and to no avail, because the Government was being so very stubborn, therefore, I tried another approach. That was to import the part of the covenant on freedom of speech into the Bill, so as to counter-balance, to a certain extent, the effect of political censorship under the Bill. This is a retrograde step. It can also be described as a compromise for the sake of consensus without giving up on principles. At first, the Government still fought the compromise very hard, but within this Council there has been greater and greater consensus, under the pressure of which, the Government gave in at the last minute. But the Government's giving in means no more than you saying 'To take into account formulation', while still rejecting the compliance formulation.
According to the Bar Association and the Law Society, the 'take into account' formulation does not give any counter-balancing effect, meaning that the concession made by the Government has no substance. It is merely a gesture. I agree with the Bar Association and the Hong Kong Law Society on this, but after all, this is the first time an international covenant was referred to in local legislation, so while it may not have immediate substantial effect, in the long run, it will has some meaning and historical significance.
The Government's compromise is only a gesture and a gesture is a gesture, no more, but it is a little better than no gesture at all. I will keep on fighting for the deletion of political censorship from the Bill. I have been told that the much criticised Public Order (Amendment) Ordinance that steamrolled past the Council is to be reviewed soon.
I will continue fighting for, and battling on, the review of the Bill in the near future. I am a Legislative Councillor representing the education functional constituency. Members of the Professional Teachers Union (PTU) account for 80 per cent of the members in the constituency. The Executive Committee of the PTU has discussed what stand should I take regarding the Bill. I was instructed by PTU to abstain from voting on the Bill.