12
3
10
5
6
cap
7
8
9
10
11
12
Sir, the Film Censorship Regulations 1987 were introduced into
this Council under very unfortunate circumstances. If they were introduced prior to the Sino-British negotiation I dare say hardly 4 a murmur would have been raised. What seems to be a refinement
and improvement of existing regulations and guidelines has
somehow been cleverly used by some as a tool in their efforts
to continuously sow seeds of distrust of the administration in
Hong Kong. In the midst of the newsworthy furore that has been
created the fact that the old regulations and the guidelines have
13 been in smooth operation for over thirteen years has been completely
overlooked. More importantly, the ironic part is that those who vehemently oppose regulation 3A (7) or the good relations clause of the new regulations have conveniently overlooked the fact that there was apparently no serious complaints lodged against the actual administration of the old regulations and guidelines throughout
the years.
The film industry accepted them, the theatre operators accepted them and the majority of the people of Hong Kong accepted
them. In fact, all available evidence points to the fact that
13 hardly anyone in Hong Kong had complained in the past thirteen, years about the regulations and guidelines having the effect of suppressing freedom of expression in Hong Kong. Why is there a sudden change of
attitude. Some have reason that they can most probably trust
the administration under the British flag, but they do not have but they do have serious reservations about the administration
13
14
cap 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Cap 23
Cap 24
25
26
27
cap 28
29
र्र
Cap
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Ξ
"
· after 1997. For it is feared that it could then indiscriminately apply such censorship regulations to suppress freedom of expression
whether in Hong Kong. Hence, the question of/regulation 3A (7) would contravene the International Covenant on civil and political rights becomes a tool in a bid to influence this legislature, to erase certain provisions of the new regulations which, as perceived by some, will surely be misused after 1997. It is perhaps understandable, or even natural, for some of us
to have reservations about the situation after 1997.
However, it will be disastrous for the future of Hong Kong if we were to take on every issue only with the attitude of
of unmovable distrust whilst shunting off the value of objective pragmatic analysis of the issues involved.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.