XN000022-1985-04-30 — Page 3

2.

+

TUESDAY, APRIL 30, 1985

+ IN THE INTERIM SUBSEQUENT ISSUES OF THE SAME PUBLICATION MAY STILL BE SOLD FREELY IN THE MARKET, HE SAID.

TO OVERCOME THESE PROBLEMS, MR TSAO SAID, THE GOVERNMENT WAS CONSIDERING SETTING UP AN OBJECTIONABLE PUBLICATIONS TRIBUNAL.

+ELSEWHERE IN THE WORLD SUCH TRIBUNALS EXIST. THE TRIBUNAL COULD WORK IN SUCH A WAY THAT PUBLICATIONS CAN EITHER BE SUBMITTED VOLUNTARILY BY PUBLISHERS FOR SCRUTINY BEFORE ISSUE OR BE REFERRED BY THE COURTS OR THE ADMINISTRATION FOR A RULING AFTER PUBLICATION, HE SAID.

TURNING TO FILM CENSORSHIP, MR TSAO SAID THE PRESENT SYSTEM ENFORCED BY THE TELEVISION AND ENTERTAINMENT LICENSING AUTHORITY RELIED ON BOTH A PUBLIC ADVISORY GROUP AND PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS.

NEVERTHELESS, THERE WERE STILL WEAKNESSES.

THERE WAS NO DISTINCTION AS TO THE MATURITY OF PARTICULAR FILM VIEWERS, SCENES WERE CUT BEFORE RELEASE WHICH INEVITABLY

INTERFERED WITH THE FLOW OF THE FILM, AND THE ADVICE OF THE CENSORSHIP AUTHORITY HAD NO LEGAL FORCE.

SO WHAT THE GOVERNMENT NOW PROPOSED WAS THE INTRODUCTION OF A FILM CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM WHICH DIVIDED FILMS INTO THREE CATEGORIES:

* APPROVED AS SUITABLE FOR ALL AGES:

* GENERAL APPROVAL BUT CONTAINING SCENES WHICH

PARENTS MAY CONSIDER UNSUITABLE FOR YOUNG CHILDREN

AND

* APPROVED FOR VIEWING BY THOSE 18 YEARS OLD

AND OVER ONLY.

+THERE WILL OF COURSE BE SOME PROBLEMS OF ENFORCEMENT,+ SAID MR TSAO, BUT THE PRINCIPAL MERITS OF THIS, AS I SEE IT, ARE THAT A LARGE ELEMENT OF CHOICE WOULD BE RESTORED TO THE PUBLIC. TOGETHER WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PARENTS TO JUDGE FOR THEMSELVES WHAT THEIR CHILDREN MAY OR MAY NOT SEE.+

/GOVERNMENT HAD