TNAG-1687-FCO40-2337-Hong-Kong-legislation-regarding-the-control-of-publications--1987 — Page 149

CONFIDENTIAL

Argument

8.

The

The public controversy that arose in Hong Kong in the twelve days leading up to the debate on 11 March was unexpected.

measures had been published in late December, to a generally positive local reception. They amounted to a substantial liberalisation of Hong Kong's previous legislation on the "control of the press": the only real measure of control that was to be retained was itself to be amended (the financial penalties were increased but the custodial penalties reduced) and transferred to legislation governing public order rather than that relating to newspapers the section as passed by LegCo relates to radio and television as well as newspapers. The debate followed a long period of close consultation with OMELCO, and the enactment of both bills was supported by a clear majority of LegCo members.

9.

With hindsight it can be argued that the one controversial measure to be retained might more safely have been left where it was, in an old Ordinance that was in other respects to be emasculated

Pla

though its extension to radio and television would argue against that course. The strong reaction, albeit belated, of a small but vocal group who are genuinely concerned about the preservation of Hong Kong's freedoms - not against attack by the present Hong Kong authorities but by those to succeed them in 1997 - might also have been anticipated. But having consulted closely with OMELCO over a ten week period during which the Hong Kong public had full opportunity to express its views, the Hong Kong Government had finally to make a difficult choice. Further deferment might have made even the limited measures proposed (and which in Hong Kong's local conditions seem to me to be reasonable safeguards) impossible to carry thereafter. There is a strong argument that, having weighed the views of all sides, and having ascertained that a majority of OMELCO supported the measures, the Hong Kong Government should be seen to bring forward for debate in LegCo those measures that it had concluded to be appropriate to Hong Kong's circumstances. The majority of LegCo, which supported the legislation

P

and particularly the appointed members, who may

already feel somewhat more exposed to criticism as the public debate on representative government gathers momentum would have been

CONFIDENTIAL