HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL - 11 January 1989
香港立法局
·九八九年一月十一日
45
I would also like to thank the Secretary for Administrative Services and Information for his effort in consulting the media during the review. This willingness to listen, to explain and to discuss must not stop at this one issue but must continue in all other aspects of administration.
Nevertheless, we must caution against an attitude of complacency which I discerned in the Secretary for Administrative Services and Information's speech when he introduced the present Bill to this Council.
I am referring to his remark that "All that is now water under the bridge. This is a time for healing, not a time for re-opening old wounds".
That remark seems to reflect an attitude which I read as: Now that section 27 is going to be repealed, all will be well.
Sir, Secretary for Administrative Services and Information may be well correct that all will be well, in so far as the continuous emotive hounding of the Administration is concerned, but should Government inform us what lessons have been learnt from the episode?
Were there in the first place problems of communication between the Government and the publishing industry? What problems exist, if any, in the way consultations were carried out? Has the Government done enough explaining early enough, or has the media been slow in reacting? In the process of conducting this review, have Members of this Council been consulted or advised on how it was being done? How wide was the review? Has the Administration ever considered seeking views from some of those who gave support to the Government two years ago and as a result of that support, subsequently were labelled and vehemently attacked by some members of the media? We are certainly interested to hear from Secretary for Administrative Services and Information in response to some of these questions in his reply.
While section 27 has been dubbed by some critics as a draconian sword on the neck of the media, the publication of false news, with or without malicious intent, must remain haunting to members of the public. Are we satisfied that the lack of significant incidents in the past two years in this area meant that we are simply over worried?
I do not think anyone would dispute that wilful publication of false news detrimental to the community is wrong and needs to be deterred. The questions is what kind of deterrent is possible?