XN000022-1987-03-11 — Page 10

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11, 1987

8

+SINCE IT IS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO ESTABLISH WHAT WAS IN THE MIND OF THE PERSON PUBLISHING THE FALSE NEWS, IT IS ACCEPTABLE TO REQUIRE THE ACCUSED TO PROVE THAT HE HAD REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR BELIEVING THAT THE NEWS TO WHICH THE CHARGE RELATES WAS TRUE.+

OTHERWISE, THE PROVISION WOULD BECOME A DEAD LETTER OF THE LAW, HE ADDED.

HE NOTED THAT FALSE NEWS IN ITSELF WAS NOT AN OFFENCE UNDER THE EXISTING OR THE NEW SECTION. AN OFFENCE WOULD BE COMMITTED ONLY IF THE FALSE NEWS WAS ALSO LIKELY TO ALARM PUBLIC OPINION OR DISTURB PUBLIC ORDER.

THE COMBINATION OF THESE TWO FACTORS WOULD MAKE IT EXTREMELY UNLIKELY FOR AN OFFENCE TO BE COMMITTED UNDER THE EXISTING OR THE NEW SECTION, PARTICULARLY UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, HE SAID.

+ IT IS FELT THAT IN HONG KONG TODAY, THERE IS JUSTIFICATION TO RETAIN SOME RESIDUAL POWER OVER UNSCRUPULOUS PUBLICATION WHICH MAY RESULT IN SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES TO THE PUBLIC,+ HE ADDED.

ON THE SUGGESTION THAT BY NOT DISCRIMINATING AGAINST THE PRESS AND THUS WIDENING THE AMBIT OF THE SECTION TO COVER ANY PERSON, REPRESENTED A CHANGE IN THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT, MR WONG SAID THIS VIEW WAS NOT SHARED BY A NUMBER OF MEMBERS.

✔THEY WERE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT HAD ALWAYS BEEN THE SAME, WHICH WAS THE PREVENTION OF PUBLICATION OF FALSE NEWS LIKELY TO ALARM PUBLIC OPINION OR DISTURB PUBLIC ORDER.

+TO SUGGEST THAT MAKING IT AN OFFENCE FOR A PERSON TO PUBLISH FALSE NEWS LIKELY TO ALARM PUBLIC OPINION OR DISTURB PUBLIC ORDER IS A THREAT TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IS STRETCHING REASON AND LOGIC TO A POINT WHERE IT STANDS ON VERY TENUOUS GROUNDS,+ MR WONG SAID.

NO PRESS, NO PERSON IN AN ORDERLY AND DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO COMMIT ACTS WHICH WERE PREJUDICIAL TO THE PUBLIC GOOD, HE ADDED.

HE SAID THAT AS A LAWYER HE WAS NATURALLY NOT HAPPY ABOUT SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO THE ACCUSED. BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE ARGUMENTS WERE FINELY BALANCED, HE SAID.

MR WONG ALSO NOTED THAT THE EXISTING PROVISION HAD BEEN IN EXISTENCE SINCE 1951, AND HAD NOT CAUSED ANY PROBLEM NOR POSED ANY THREAT AT ALL. NOR HAD IT BEEN ABUSED BY THE GOVERNMENT AT ANY TIME DURING THE PAST 36 YEARS.

+TO ALLOW THE TWO BILLS TO PASS INTO LAW IS A SENSIBLE AND ACCEPTABLE POLITICAL COMPROMISE, HE CONCLUDED,

19

Page 10Page 11

1