TNAG-1692-FCO40-2342-Hong-Kong-legislation-regarding-the-control-of-publications--1987 — Page 16

- 5 -

27 to

proposed section

the Public Order Ordinance was

materially different from the proposed amended section 27 as

per

the

motion lodged with this Council

Furthermore, the Administration

last Thursday.

seems to be

complaining that

the concerned groups should have made their voices known much

earlier than they did. But can we really blame them? They

were looking no doubt to the

Council to look after the

Kong.

the

Representations

h ad

non-government members of this

interests of the people of Hong

indeed been made to the Ad Hoc

groups in no uncertain terms that the proposed section 27 to

Public Order Ordinance should be scrapped altogether. Could we therefore blame them for havign put their trust in the

non-government members of this Council that they would do just

that?

proposed

of Hong Kong knew for the

will not scrap section 27.

And So it was only on last Thursday when

amendments to this Bill were published that the people

first time that the Administration

the

But let us

suppose for the sake of argument that

these concerned groups

have

making their voices heard,

indeed been guilty of delay in

although I do not think so for the

reasons given above. But does it therefore mean that they will

forfeit their right to have their valuable views considered by

Should a responsible government deprive the

this Council?

people it governs of the opportunity of further discussion

on