HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL —
18 May 1988
1449
MR. LAI (in Cantonese): Sir, first of all, I wish to pay tribute to the ad hoc group on the Film Censorship Bill under the convenorship of Mr. YEUNG PO-kwan, because they have put in a lot of work in the past 14 months.
The Bill under discussion is extremely important. It touches freedom of speech of the people of Hong Kong. My own principle is, all legislation that may affect freedom of expression, should be dealt with very carefully in order to meet the requirements and the spirit of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, and the wording involving degree of tolerance is particularly important. After 1997, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will be using the same laws that we have now, or are being amended now.
Having heard the very clear explanations offered by Mr. YEUNG and Mr. Martin LEE, the question as to which of the two is the better choice in order to ensure freedom of expression, is a very technical one and is difficult for someone outside the profession to make a decision, but if the question is merely a legal one, and if Mr. YEUNG's amendment is sufficient to safeguard freedom of expression, then the question I ask is why is it that we have two legal associations, that is the Bar Association and the Law Society strongly against that formulation, and why is it that the Journalists' Association are also strongly against it? If our intention is to abide by the International Covenant, why do we not simply say the formulation of 'comply with' and allay the fears of these professional bodies.
Sir, under the premise and for that reason, I support Mr. Martin LEE's amendment.
MR. YEUNG: Sir, I think I have already dealt comprehensively with the relevant aspects of both formulas, and I do not wish to take up the time of this Committee any more than necessary.
Whilst I respect the views of those Members who advocate the 'comply with' formula, nothing that has been said this afternoon has caused me to doubt the validity and effectiveness of the amendment standing in my name.
MRS. CHOW: Sir, I support Mr. P. K. YEUNG's amendment. I can well understand what exactly the censor is required to do with his formulation. He should consider a film by taking into account the covenant as it is applied in Hong Kong. I cannot understand what exactly the censor is required to do with Mr. LEE's formulation. His amendment to insert 'comply with' is qualified with the margin of appreciation normally afforded to governments. Now what does it exactly mean and which government, the Soviet Government, the Australian Government or other signatories of the covenant? With this amendment, will our courts then be required to determine what the margin of appreciation normally afforded to Government is?
On balance, I would like to give more discretion rather than less to our censors, bearing in mind the very sensitive political position we are in and the