TNAG-1391-FCO40-1863-Future-of-Hong-Kong-briefing-for-meetings-and-visits-1985 — Page 45

*

THEY POINTED OUT THAT AT PRESENT DEFAMATORY AND UNAUTHORISED PUBLICATIONS WERE COVERED BY THE DEFAMATION ORDINANCE, SO THERE WAS NO NEED TO INTRODUCE PROVISIONS SUCH AS THOSE IN SECTION 20 WHICH

THEY FEARED WOULD BE USED TO STIFLE MEDIA COMMENT ON THE

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

ON SECTION 8, WHICH DEALS WITH THE ENTRY OF STRANGERS TO THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, THEY FELT THE EXISTING ORDER 66 OF LEGCO STANDING ORDERS WAS ALREADY ADEQUATE.

ON SECTION 17D, THEY SAID IT WAS DIFFICULT TO DEFINE INTENTIONAL DISREPSECT AND FELT IT COULD BE USED TO LIMIT WHAT THE MEDIA COULD AND COULD NOT PUBLISH.

IN CONCLUSION, THEY SAID IT WAS IRONIC THAT THE COUNCIL SHOULD BE GRANTED FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND DEBATE, WHILE THE SAME FREEDOM WAS DENIED TO THE MEDIA OR PRIVATE CITIZENS GENERALLY.

STRESSING THAT THE MEDIA WAS ACTING AS A WATCHDOG ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC, THEY SAID IT SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO SCRUTINISE THE WORKINGS OF THE COUNCIL AND ITS COMMITTEES.

THIS ROLE COULD BE CURTAILED BY THE ABOVE MENTIONED SECTIONS

OF THE BILL-, THEY SAID.

REPLYING, MISS TAM SAID THERE WAS A CHECK IN THAT ALL PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES UNDER THE BILL WOULD REQUIRE THE

CONSENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

SHE PROMISED TO CONSIDER THE ASSOCIATIONS'S VIEWS AND TO DISCUSS

THEM WITH THE ADMINISTRATION.''

ENDS

HADDON-CAVE

NNNN

Page 45Page 46