TNAG-1690-FCO40-2340-Hong-Kong-legislation-regarding-the-control-of-publications--1987 — Page 109

1

2

W 3

3

+ in

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

legislative council/once housed the Supreme Court, a place where

members of the legal profession frequented. It was also a place where there were display of talents, eloquence and rhetoric. But rulings would finally rest with experienced judges. Today, we are at the same venue but the subject matter is the same and the situation is different. Debate over legal viewpoints is not meaningful, nor would it bring about satisfactory results. Therefore, bearing in mind we are

still in the consultative stage and also the regulations

would only be an interim measure, I am afraid I cannot accept the deletion of Section 3A (7) of the Film Censorship Regulation.

reculationi

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

2.5

2 2 2 2 2 2

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

Mr. Cheong-Leen: After much soul-searching

I rise in support of the position that the film censorship regulation 1987 be retained without deletion of Regulation 3A (7). Two legal opinions have been expressed. One is that regulation 3A (7) which has to do with the censorship principle relating to damage to good relations with other territories,breaches the international covenant on civil and political rights. This is the view enshrined in an opinion by Mr. Eric Barrant, a barrister. The other opinion is that the regulation in question does not reach the covenant and such is the view both of the Attorney General and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

I am of the view that at this point of time there is need to retain this regulation in the interests of the political security and well-being of Hong Kong. In the case of this particular piece of legislation I do not think that we should be excessively worried that Hong Kong will become a special administrative region ten years from now. The Hong Kong Government has been following the spirit of this regulation by a way of a guideline for over thirteen years already. it has not done damage to Hong Kong's political, economic, social or cultural viability, nor violated individual liberties, as far as I can ascertain.

And

I would agree, however,