XN000022-1994-10-26 — Page 37

21

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1994

ANOTHER ASPECT OF PRESS FREEDOM IS THE LAW OF CONTEMPT OF COURT. AS I EXPLAINED TO THIS COUNCIL IN JANUARY OF LAST YEAR, THE ADMINISTRATION DOUBTS THAT CODIFICATION OF THE LAW OF CONTEMPT IS EITHER NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE. HOWEVER, I AM AWARE THAT THE MEDIA MAY HAVE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES IN KNOWING WHETHER, IN COMMENTING UPON PENDING PROCEEDINGS, THEY RISK FACING PROCEEDINGS FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT.

THIS IS AN EVOLVING AREA OF THE LAW IN WHICH FREEDOM OF THE PRESS HAS TO BE BALANCED AGAINST THE NEED TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS A FAIR TRIAL. IN ORDER TO GIVE THE MEDIA A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THEIR POSITION, I PROPOSE, IN THE NEAR FUTURE, TO ISSUE GUIDELINES IN RESPECT OF THE INSTITUTION OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS. THE GUIDELINES WILL NOT AMOUNT TO RULES OF LAW BUT ARE DESIGNED TO HELP MEMBERS OF THE MEDIA RESOLVE THE PRACTICAL PROBLEMS THEY FACE.

MR ALBERT CHAN RAISED THE QUESTION OF THE AUTONOMY OF CHOICE OF PROGRAMMES IN BROADCASTING. HE SAID THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD REVIEW ITS POLICY TO ENSURE BROADCASTING FREEDOM AND GREATER PUBLIC

PARTICIPATION.

WE

OF

AS THE SECRETARY FOR RECREATION AND CULTURE CAN TESTIFY, OUR BROADCASTING POLICY IS TO PROVIDE AS WIDE A POSSIBLE CHOICE OF PROGRAMMING TO THE PUBLIC AS THE BROADCASTING INDUSTRY CAN BEAR. BELIEVE THAT THIS PROVIDES A VALUABLE SAFEGUARD TO FREEDOM INFORMATION AND EXPRESSION IN THE BROADCASTING MEDIA. THE CHOICE OF PROGRAMMING HAS GROWN SIGNIFICANTLY IN THE PAST FEW YEARS. THE NUMBER OF TELEVISION CHANNELS HAVE INCREASED FROM FOUR IN 1991 TO 23 AT PRESENT, AND MORE WILL BE OFFERED IN THE MONTHS AHEAD.

IN

ADDITION, WE HAVE IN PLACE A VERY OPEN, FAIR AND EFFICIENT REGULATORY SYSTEM

ONE WHICH AIMS TO ALLOW MAXIMUM FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND CHOICE WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF PROTECTING THE PUBLIC INTEREST AGAINST UNACCEPTABLE PROGRAMMING. AS A CONDITION OF THEIR FRANCHISE, TELEVISION STATIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BROADCAST CERTAIN RADIO TELEVISION HONG KONG PROGRAMMES, EDUCATIONAL MATERIAL AND ANNOUNCEMENTS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST REQUIRED BY THE BROADCASTING AUTHORITY. BUT APART FROM THIS, IT IS GENERALLY A MATTER FOR THE LICENSEES TO DECIDE THE PROGRAMMES THEY ACQUIRE, MAKE, COMMISSION AND BROADCAST. WE DO NOT PRE-CENSOR WHAT BROADCASTERS SHOW. MEMBERS WILL RECALL THAT THIS POWER WAS SPECIFICALLY REMOVED FROM THE BROADCASTING AUTHORITY LAST YEAR WITH THE ENACTMENT OF THE TELEVISION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1993. NOW ONLY THE HIGH COURT HAS THE POWER TO BAN PROGRAMMES, AND WOULD ONLY DO SO IN VERY EXCEPTIONAL CASES. INSTEAD, WE RELY ON A SYSTEM OF POST-BROADCAST CONTROLS, DRIVEN BY A HIGH DEGREE OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. AN EFFICIENT COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE UNDER THE BROADCASTING AUTHORITY AND ITS COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE ENSURES THAT PROGRAMMING FOUND UNACCEPTABLE BY VIEWERS CAN BE OBJECTIVELY EXAMINED AND A DETERMINATION MADE, ACCORDING TO A SET OF STANDARDS SET OUT IN FREELY AVAILABLE CODES OF PRACTICE, WHETHER POST-BROADCAST SANCTIONS SHOULD BE IMPOSED. THE STANDARDS ARE CAREFULLY PITCHED, TO CONFORM ΤΟ PREVAILING SOCIAL MORALES AND ATTITUDES. THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATE ACTIVELY IN MONITORING THESE STANDARDS AND IN KEEPING THE CODES UP TO DATE.

MR PRESIDENT, I HOPE THAT WHAT I HAVE SAID TODAY WILL ASSURE MEMBERS OF THIS COUNCIL OF THIS ADMINISTRATION'S UNSWERVING COMMITMENT то THE MAINTENANCE OF THE RULE OF LAW, WHICH IS TRULY THE BEDROCK WHICH OUR SOCIETY IS FOUNDED, AND THAT THE CONCERNS EXPRESSED RESPECT OF OUR LEGAL SYSTEM ARE BEING PROPERLY ADDRESSED BY ADMINISTRATION.

MR PRESIDENT, I SUPPORT THE MOTION.

ON

IN

THE

0

/22