WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11, 1987
21
HE SAID THE PROVISION ALSO VIOLATED JOURNALISTS' RIGHT OF KEEPING THE SOURCES OF NEWS SECRET. TO PROVE THAT THE TRUTH OF THE NEWS HAD BEEN VERIFIED WAS TANTAMOUNT TO DIVULGING THE SOURCE OF THE NEWS, AND HENCE THE PROVISION WAS ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE.
THE PROVISION NOT ONLY SUPPRESSED THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS BUT ALSO AFFECTED THE PUBLIC AT LARGE, HE SAID.
+FOR INSTANCE, NEWSPAPER EDITORS, KNOWING THAT THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY READERS ARE ALSO SUBJECTED TO SUCH SUPPRESSION, WILL BE DOUBLY CAREFUL IN PUBLISHING LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, AND SO THE CHANNEL FOR THE PUBLIC TO AIR THEIR VIEWS WILL BE OBSTRUCTED, + HE SAID.
MR LEE NOTED THAT AS HONG KONG WAS A CAPITALIST SOCIETY, THERE WERE BOUND TO BE SOME UNSCRUPULOUS PEOPLE WHO WOULD MAKE USE OF LOOPHOLES IN THE LAW TO TAKE ADVANTAGES THROUGH FOUL MEANS. CRITICISM EXERTED BY PUBLIC OPINION WAS THE ONLY POSSIBLE CHECK.
+FOR THIS REASON, THE PRESS IS TASKED WITH THE MISSION OF UPHOLDING SOCIAL JUSTICE,+ HE SAID.
HE ADDED THAT THE EXPRESSION +FALSE NEWS AND POSSIBLY GIVES RISE TO PUBLIC ALARM+ AS USED IN SECTION 27 OF THE BILL INVOLVED SUBJECTIVE JUDGEMENT AND MIGHT RESULT IN RULING BY MAN RATHER THAN RULING BY LAW+.
MR LEE CITED A RECENT CASE IN WHICH THE PRESS HAD UNCOVERED TWO INCIDENTS WHICH INVOLVED THE THREATENED POISONING OF PACKETED DRINKS. +WARNING LETTERS WERE SUBSEQUENTLY ISSUED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO THE NEWSPAPERS. BUT AFTERWARDS, A CRIMINAL WAS ARRESTED AND CONVICTED, PROVING THAT THE NEWS REPORTED WAS TRUE.
+ IF THE NEWS DISTRIBUTOR HAD BEEN PROSECUTED ACCORDING TO THE FALSE NEWS ORDINANCE, IT WOULD BE MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE WHEN THE NEWS WAS EVENTUALLY FOUND TO BE TRUE, HE SAID.
EVEN IF THE BILL WAS PASSED BY THE MAJORITY, MR LEE SAID HE WOULD STILL ASK THE GOVERNMENT TO CONDUCT AN IMMEDIATE REVIEW, INCLUDING THE CONSULTATION OF THE JOURNALIST PROFESSION AND THE DELETION OF SECTION 27 IN FUTURE.
MR LEE SAID HE WISHED THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL WOULD, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDING ORDERS, TAKE NOTE OF THE VOICES IN FAVOUR AND THOSE AGAINST THE BILL.
IF THERE WAS ONLY A NARROW GAP, HE HOPED THE PRESIDENT WOULD DECIDE WHETHER IT WAS NECESSARY TO TAKE COUNT OF THE VOTES SEPARATELY.
/AT THE