WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11, 1987
13
PUTTING ONUS OF PROOF ON DEFENDANTS UNCONVINCING"
*****
THE HON STEPHEN CHEONG TODAY (WEDNESDAY) SAID HE REMAINED UNCONVINCED ON THE NEED TO PUT THE ONUS OF PROOF ONTO THE DEFENDANT ACCUSED OF PUBLISHING FALSE NEWS.
SPEAKING AGAINST THE PROPOSED NEW SECTION 27 IN THE PUBLIC ORDER (AMENDMENT) BILL 1986, MR CHEONG SAID WHILE HE WAS AGAINST THE PRESUMPTION CLAUSE OF THE BILL,
HE BILL. HE WAS NOT AGAINST THE SPIRIT THAT DETERRENT SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED AGAINST THOSE PERSONS WHO PUBLISHED FALSE NEWS THAT WAS LIKELY TO ALARM PUBLIC OPINION OR DISTURB PUBLIC ORDER.
CITING THE WATERGATE INCIDENT IN THE U.S. AS AN EXAMPLE. MR CHEONG QUESTIONED WHETHER THE NEW SECTION 27 WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT OR EVEN IMPEDE THE WORK OF JOURNALISTS.
+COULD IT BE THAT UNDER THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE DEFENDANTS WOULD HAVE TO PROVE THEIR OWN INNOCENCE, THEY WOULD BE VERY HARD PUT TO PUT UP ANY MEANINGFUL DEFENCE UNLESS THEY REVEAL THE SOURCE OF THE INFORMATION?+ HE QUESTIONED.
HE SAID HONG KONG SHOULD BE PRAGMATIC ENOUGH TO RECOGNISE THAT THERE EXISTED CERTAIN ETHICS AND PRACTICES WITHIN THE JOURNALIST TRADE AND THAT JOURNALISTS WORLDWIDE BY AND LARGE ADHERED STRINGENTLY TO THIS PRACTICE.
+ IT WOULD AT BEST BE UNREASONABLE AND AT WORST WRONG FOR HONG KONG TO REQUIRE OUR JOURNALISTS TO BREAK SUCH AN INTERNATIONAL CODE OF PRACTICE ESPECIALLY WHEN WE HAVE EVERY DESIRE TO TRY TO MAINTAIN HONG KONG AS AN INTERNATIONAL CENTRE, HE SAID.
REFERRING TO THE OPPOSITION CAMPAIGN TO BLOCK THE BILL.
MR CHEONG SAID THAT IN HIS VIEW EMOTIONS HAD BEEN UNNECESSARILY WHIPPED UP TO SO HIGH A LEVEL THAT ONE MIGHT BE LIABLE TO FALL INTO A TRAP OF LOOSING ONE'S SENSE OF BALANCE.
+PRESSURE CAMPAIGNS WERE MOUNTED DESIGNED TO LOBBY OR EVEN FORCE COUNCILLORS INTO A CORNER SO AS TO STOP THIS BILL DEAD,+ HE SAID.
MR CHEONG ADDED THAT THE NET EFFECT OF ALL THESE HIGH PRESSURE TACTICS REALLY HAD NOT BEEN CONDUCIVE TO COOL-HEADED AND OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS OF THE SUBJECT MATTER.
+FOR EXAMPLE, THE ADMINISTRATION IN STRIKING OUT REFERENCE TO LOCAL PAPERS IN THE AMENDED VERSION OF THE BILL, IS NOW ACCUSED OF PURPOSELY WIDENING THE SCOPE OF COVERAGE FROM THE ORIGINAL GAZETTED VERSION SO AS TO GAG THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN HONG KONG, HE NOTED.
+
/THE FACT