TNAG-1689-FCO40-2339-Hong-Kong-legislation-regarding-the-control-of-publications--1987 — Page 178

行政司

布政司署

香港下亞厘畢道

Dear Mr. Biddulph,

Secretary for Administrative Services and Information

GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, LOWER ALBERT ROAD, HONG KONG.

A

24 March 1987

I have been directed by the Secretary

of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to pass on his reply to your telegram of 16 March. The reply reads as follows :

"Begins

Thank you for your telex of 16 March about the Hong Kong Public Order (Amendment) Ordinance.

As you will appreciate, this is primarily a matter for the Hong Kong Government. I should however make two points. First the legislation passed by the Legislative Council on 11 March included the repeal of a number of stringent provisions of the Control of Publications Consolidation Ordinance that had been part of the Laws of Hong Kong for many years, but which have not prevented the Hong Kong media from being among the most free and outspoken in Asia. In reviewing this legislation and deciding upon these repeals, the Hong Kong Government considered that in such a small and densely-populated place as Hong Kong, it was nevertheless necessary to retain. some power to take action against anyone publishing false news that might threaten public order. То make it clear that this was the purpose of the provision, and that it was not intended as a limitation of the freedom of the press, that power was transferred from the Control of Publications Ordinance to the Public Order Ordinance. The provision is, therefore, in no sense a new one and the result of the legislation passed on 11 March represents a major liberalisation compared with the position before 11 March.

Secondly, the provision to which you object replaces (with variations) a provision which has been on the Hong Kong statute book since 1951. The current bills were first published in the Hong Kong Government Gazette on 19 December 1986. Thereafter the measures were discussed extensively between the Administration and Members of the Executive and Legislative Councils. The draft bills were very fully debated in the Legis- lative Council on 11 March, when the implications of the measures on freedom of speech in the Territory were considered in detail. Both bills were thereafter passed by a large majority of the Council.

/In your

લ