XN000022-1992-02-26 — Page 5

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1992

SIR DAVID SAID THE BILL CLEARLY DID ALLOW FOR DEROGATIONS TO BE MADE FROM ARTICLE 16 IN AN EMERGENCY SITUATION.

"I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE TWO POINTS. FIRSTLY, WE BELIEVE THAT THE

POWER WISH THE GOVERNMENT TO HAVE THE NECESSARY

ΤΟ COMMUNITY WOULD

WITH AN EMERGENCY SITUATION FORMALLY DECLARED BY THE DEAL PROVIDED THE POWERS USED DO NOT IN ANY WAY LIMITATIONS LAID DOWN IN THE BILI.

CONTRAVENE

GOVERNOR,

THOSE

"AND THE SECOND POINT IS THAT DESPITE MS LAU'S IMPASSIONED ASSERTION THAT PARTS OF THE EMERGENCY REGULATIONS ARE IN BREACH OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THEY ARE BOTH WITHIN THE AND LETTER OF THE BILL," SIR DAVID SAID.

SPIRIT

HIS

WERE NOT

SIR DAVID SAID HE WAS ADVISED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THAT. THE LAWS IDENTIFIED

MS LAU' AND OTHERS INCONSISTENT WITH ARTICLE 16 OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

TEAM

"WE

BY

HONOURABLE MEMBERS ARE NOT PRESS

SHALL STUDY FURTHER THE ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS IN THE DEBATE TODAY. BUT, I WOULD NOT WISH TO LEAVE IN ANY DOUBT AS TO OUR VIEW WHICH IS THAT THESE LAWS INCONSISTENT WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND, NOR DO THEY INFRINGE FREEDOMS.

--

"THE POINT HAS BEEN MADE AND WE AGREE WITH IT, HE SAID.

HOWEVER, SIR DAVID POINTED OUT THAT ULTIMATELY, IT WAS ONLY THE VIEW OF THE COURTS WHICH COUNTED.

"SOME

SOCIETY

THE EXISTING LAWS HAVE BEEN CHALLENGED IN THE COURTS ON

- FOR EXAMPLE, GROUNDS THAT THEY ARE AT ODDS WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS CERTAIN PRESUMPTIONS IN THE LAW DEALING WITH DRUGS. BUT IN A GOVERNED BY THE RULE OF LAW, THIS IS AN ENTIRELY NATURAL PROCESS, SAID.

ין

HE

HAD

THE CHIEF SECRETARY MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT THE GOVERNMENT NO DIFFICULTY WITH THIS MOTION AND THE ADMINISTRATION WAS COMMITTED TO DEFENDING THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN HONG KONG.

HE SAID THE GOVERNMENT'S JUDGEMENT WAS THAT NONE OF

BREACHED ARTICLE 16 OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

MENTIONED

AND FOR THAT REASON THE THREE OFFICIALS

FAVOUR OF THIS MOTION.

THE LAWS

THEREFORE VOTED IN

THE CHIEF SUCH A

ON THE PROPOSED FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ORDINANCE, SECRETARY SAID THE GOVERNMENT POSITION WAS THAT THE CASE FOR LAW HAD NOT BEEN PROVEN.

'JUSTICE', THE JOURNALISTS ADMINISTRATION AND

HE NOTED THAT THE BILL PREPARED BY ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS HAD BEEN PRESENTED TO THE IT WAS BEING CAREFULLY STUDIED.

/"BUT I