HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
2 November 1988
香港立法局 -一九八八年十一月二日
34
A general reference to the Public Order Ordinance as it affects the press was included in paragraph 154 of Hong Kong's Second Periodic Report submitted last year.
In addition, a more specific reference to the "false news" provision in section 27 of the Public Order Ordinance was included in paragraph 15 of a further report which sets out the up-to-date position in respect of the issues mentioned in last year's main report. Paragraph 15 reads, "A review of Section 27 of the Public Order Ordinance which deals with false news is scheduled for the end of 1988."
DR. LEONG: Sir, a follow-up question: why did the same report, that is, the Second Periodic Report by Hong Kong, also fail to mention this year's passage of the Film Censorship Ordinance which legalises censorship of films on political grounds and which, again, I consider a breach of article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights? Now the Attorney General has just informed this Council that there will be a meeting in Geneva tomorrow. Will this particular aspect also be covered by a supplementary report in Geneva tomorrow?
ATTORNEY GENERAL: It is outside the scope of the question. Somehow I shall attempt to answer. The Film Censorship Bill was not then enacted when the second report was compiled in December last year. However, reference to the Film Censorship Bill will be made by the United Kingdom delegation in its introductory statement when the Hong Kong report is examined by the Human Rights Committee in Geneva.
MR. MARTIN LEE: Sir, bearing in mind that paragraph 154 of the Second Report referred to by the learned Attorney General reads as follows: "There is no press censorship; normal control over abuse as is found in any free society is exercised respectively under the Registration of Local Newspapers Ordinance, the Public Order Ordinance and the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance" and further bearing in mind paragraph 15 of the further report which the Attorney General gave to this Council earlier in his original reply, will the Administration inform this Council whether the failure to mention section 27 of the Public Order Ordinance in the Second Periodic Report was due to mere oversight or was it because the Hong Kong Government had originally thought that the said section 27 was consistent with "normal control over abuse as is found in any free society"?