HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 May 1988
1447
Once again, I have to pay tribute to my hon. Colleague Mr. Martin LEE. Sir, these are my remarks.
MR. ANDREW WONG: Sir, I said earlier during the Second Reading debate that I had strong misgivings about the positive formulation being proposed by Mr. P. K. YEUNG or Mr. Martin LEE. I therefore take strong exception to the remarks made by Mr. Peter TSAO in his reply that to some a half-empty bottle is to some others a half-full bottle. My rejoinder there, and forgive my language, is very simple, that only a half-full bottle or half-full brain will choose to describe a half-broken marriage to be a marriage half intact and pretend to live in nuptial bliss.
Sir, as I explained, I have no objections to the amendment agreed to between the Administration and ad hoc group which is now moved by the convenor of the group, Mr. YEUNG PO-kwan. In fact, I even agreed at the 37th ad hoc group meeting, a Guinness record I would imagine, that I would support it instead of Mr. Martin LEE'S amendment. However, after having reviewed all the arguments, and having seen the formal version of Mr. LEE'S amendment for which notice has already been given, I am prepared to accept it rather than the group's amendment. I, of course, owe hon. Members of this Council who are also members of the ad hoc group, an apology and also an explanation, and I do hope that I will be forgiven and forgotten, but in the latter regard, this might be wishful thinking, if not for Members' magnanimity.
Sir, let me not only explain myself but also take this opportunity to persuade my hon. Friends that both amendments fall short of my desired formulation which you will recall I have termed 'the negative approach', and in the formulation appended to my speech without any specific mention of article 19, which when mentioned, creates all kinds of problems as we experience now, but that in spite of this, Mr. Martin LEE's proposed amendment is the more preferable or the less unpreferable amendment. I will not venture into very elaborate discussion of the intricacies. To do so in any case might be beyond my abilities as I am no lawyer, and even if I were a lawyer, no expert in human rights law. I simply wish to make two simple points:
(1) If the argument was that Mr. LEE'S amendment tips the balance in favour of the film makers and the film distributors, and that this were true, then surely in the interests of freedom (here I do not mean licence), Mr. LEE's amendment ought to be the preferred amendment.
(2) If the argument was that the two amendments are really identical, or do not really differ in effect, given that Government do have margin of appreciation and that if this were true, then surely Mr. Martin LEE'S amendment ought to be preferred, as it gives people the added psychological satisfaction of being free, or the reduced psychological feeling of being repressed.