TNAG-1365-FCO40-1811-Hong-Kong-Legislative-Council-(Powers-and-Privileges)-Bill-1-1985 — Page 126

CONFIDENTIAL

A

B

defamation. The Second Reading was therefore delayed until 12 June to give time for

for further recommendations, and during this period

there was further critici sm from some members of the legal

profession, the press and a number of pressure groups.

criticism was reflected in the UK press.

6.

The

In the light of the critici sms expressed, the Hong Kong

Government have now

now made far reaching amendments to the Bill. I attach the original text at Flag A: I have sidelined the passages

which have been amended. The amendments are at Flag B. The effect

of the amendments among other things is to remove the passages about

which the Hong Kong Journalists Association were complaining. The Bill was given a Second Reading on 12 June. On present plans the

Committee Stage will take place on

on 26

26 June, followed by the Third

Reading.

"

The

7. I do not think that the Bill has been very well handled.

criticism apparently came as a complete surprise to the Hong Kong Government. I think that they might have been more sensitive about the likely reactions to any legislation which appeared to limit the freedom of the press. I have to say however that we did not foresee

these reactions ei ther: although we were not consulted in the drafting of the Bill, it reached us at the beginning of May at the same time as it was being put to the Executive Council. Our Legal Advisers, who examined it quite naturally found nothing to complain about in it, since it appears to be on ample precedent in Erskine

May and similar Acts in other colonial territories. The Department

failed to register the political implications, and

and in this I think

we were at fault.

8.

This said, I think that the criticism has been excessively one sided, as one would expect when the press is in defence of its own, and the problem is more complex than has generally been recognised. It is certainly true that we should be extremely cautious in Hong Kong about introducing any powers which could be used at a

a later

stage to curb free speech. Against this however we do need to

establish a basis on which a future legislature in Hong Kong can

operate freely and without interference,

interference, particularly interference of a demagogic nature. If at some future stage China or the

CONFIDENTIAL