HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
11 January 1989 香港立法局—————————— 一九八九年一月十一日
51
I understand that since the enactment of section 27 in 1987, there has not been a single incident which has called for the application of the law, nor has there been any evidence to show that the retention of the false news provision has in any way affected press operation in Hong Kong.
Sir, if the principle underlying this provision was not to limit press freedom but to protect the community from false news which was likely to disturb public order, then perhaps it could be argued that the Administration's original argument was understandable.
However, there was as we know a great deal of concern and it seems that because of that concern the Administration has now decided to back away from its decision and to dispense with the provision in question.
This raises some questions in my own mind. If the original intention of the Administration was correct and fair, what has changed in the meantime to encourage the Administration's change of heart now? Is there no longer a need to protect the public from the potential risks of false news reporting?
If there is still a need for legal protection for the community against the danger of false news reporting, are other existing laws adequate to do so? I would respectfully suggest the public of Hong Kong deserves an assurance, either way.
Sir, with these queries in mind, I support the motion.
蘇周艷屏議員致辭:主席先生,一九八七年三月立法局辯論公安條例第27條的時候,輿論界和 公眾曾經表現出激烈的辯論和情緒。在種種的評論當中,當然有不少集中於條例的内容,但另一 方面,亦有相當多的意見是針對政府當局諮詢工作不足夠以及處理輿論反應不夠積極。在這兩方 面的疑慮互相催化之下,産生了很多不必要的臆測和猜忌,造成當時一個緊張的局面。
但今次政府作出撤銷的決定,証明了官民之間的辯論是有積極意義的。
我希望我們的政府在重視和吸納合理意見的基礎上,繼續疏導這種緊張的壓力,特別在目前的 過渡期,香港在各方面變得愈來敏感,這種努力是十分重要的。
「公安條例事件」的另一個積極意義,是推動了更多市民關注公民權益,例如爭論已久的遊蕩 罪、公開集會的權利、精神病患者的人權、以至剛剛改組的証券監察委員會的權限等等,都是輿 論所密切關注的。月前法律改革委員會着手檢討警方及其他執法機關的權力問題,顯示當局在這 方面已有相當的主動性。