"
(RESEND).
-6-
DRAFT COPY
SER
:
This draft is subject to amendment and
DRAFT SPEECH BY HON MRS SPLINA CHOW, JP
must not be published ECISARTIVE COUNCIL
12.6.85
without being checked. Vascoaneff Prowers and Privileges) Bill 1985 es delivered by the speaker.
During the Bino-British negotiations, the wish of gòng
"Kong to retain our many freedome was ungueaționable,
..:
It is therefore understandable that much was voice! the public in general and members of the media in particular the necessity to safeguard exdating freedom of speech and the preas in the context of the Bill before us I share the sentiment, and feel that certain amendments are necessary to alleviate concern,,
↓
Two points are often criticized in Clause 17(4), The phrase 'intentional disrespect' is generally not favoßced, aķ its definition is open to question. Moreover, the following phrase 'to or with reference to the proceedings of the Council or a committee or to any person presiding at such proceedings could mean anything ranging from disrespectful words pr. pet gehuine commentary made outside the Council which may be critical of it, in either spoken, written or published form. This grave;reservation is justified, And in my view, Clause 17(d) should be removed altogether.
May I move on to Clause 20 which seems to cause the most problems as far as freedom of speech is concerned.
I certainly share the thinking of those Members of the media that Clause 20 should be deleted, so that we are left in no doubt that the present role of the media as the watchdog' of. ; government will not in any way: be eroded. The Legislativy. Pokupil does not and should not require any more protection then presently afforded by existing legislation. at this juncture, there must be no new legal provisim that be construed: ( interino
:
as retrogression in th▲ part the media is allowed tis play, particularly shep we are moving towards a wore open form of representative governeat..
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.