CONFIDENTIAL
be a strong lobby against censorship in the UK Parliament. Hence PA suggested that the paper should be amended to state the arguments against introducing the Bill more strongly and that London should be consulted on this matter. In response, SASI said that London had in fact been consulted before and that he agreed with the assessment that should there be a public row on political censorship, London
However, he would be put into a very difficult position.
noted that C.S. was more inclined towards adopting the legislative option as there was no gurantee that a public debate could be avoided by adopting the administrative option. Furthermore, a number of Leg Co Members, such as Hon Selina Chow, Hon Y.F. Hui and Hon Szeto Wah were very interested in the subject and were keeping a close watch. Fon Szeto Wah was particularly concerned about political
DCS said that bearing censorship in the Basic Law context. in mind the likelihood of KMT creating difficulties for China in Hong Kong as the Territory approached 1997, he tended to agree with the CS's assessment.
Mr. J. Scott pointed out that as only about ten out of 102 cinemas would regularly show Category III films, the proposal to ask all cinema operators to share the additional enforcement costs would likely be challenged by
In response, SASI said that he was the cinema operators. not too worried about this aspect although it would add another contentious element to the debate.
PA questioned whether a public debate could really
He be unavoided if the administrative option was adopted. felt strongly that this was not the right time to have a public debate on political censorship and that the Ex Co paper should make this point clear. After some further discussion AG concluded that the meeting was generally in
CONFIDENTIAL
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.