le
buisuffice only to
Jar
the tow effects have
produces géneral batisfaction
concernedl.
wh
all practies
had been achieved by the group as my colleagues will no doubt cover
SM
individual areas in depth. I would simply like, to urge Honourable
Members of this Council to take, three points into consideration
when deciding to vote 'yes'or ho' to this Bill.
it. Hong Kong
First, the practice of film censor
orship including
censoring films that may damage good relationship with other
countries had been going on in Hong Kong for the past 30 odd
years. This practice did not impede the growth and development of
the film industry in Hong Kong. The people of Hong Kong did not
cry foul of being deprived of the opportunity to appreciate art,
Nor did culture or to be entertained by films shown in Hong Kong.
they feel that film censorship had deprived them of the freedom of
expression. In short, there were no major complaints over the
practice of censoring films. On the contrary, recent public
sentiments called on the Government to exercise stricter control
over publications that depict an excessive degree of violence and obscenity. If the people of Hong Kong called for stricter control
on published materials, then it would be logical to deduce that
every they would not call for less or no control on films. Hence, the principle of government having a degree of control on films shown
to the public is, in my view, generally supported by our community.
hon.
Secondly, with regard to the controversial clause which
empowers the Administration to continue to censor films which might damage good relations with other nations, there have been a lot of
comments on this issue from a vocal minority of the community.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.