1
2
3
4
5
7
8
Mr. Andrew WONG: Sir, I rise in support of the Motion that the Film Censorship Bill 1988 be read a second time. On the
that is outset, may I congratulate all parties' concerned, ie, the Administration, the film industry, various public-spirited organisations such as the Journalist Association, the Law
6 Society, the Bar Association, etc and the Legislative
Council Ad Hoc group on the Bill of which I have the honour to be a Member, for their contribution and for their spirit of cooperation, if not also compromise, but all done in the pursuit of the public interest.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2223
I have been told that politics is the art of the possible, that the world is imperfect, and that any attempt towards imposing a perfect blueprint brings about even greater
imperfections. It is in this light that I lend my support to
the present Bill.
However, this does not mean that I am in
total agreement with all the provisions, and it is important
for me, or anyone who shares or has other strong views to have them registered, and registered in public, so that in future and on reflection, such provisions could be further
improved.
Sir, I do not propose to go into all provisions. My strong views relate to only one provision, and in fact to
which only one aspect of that particular provision, the provision.
beat-censorship which is the heart of the matter and t
after which the Bill is so named.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Sir, you will recall that during the Debate on 8th July 1987 on Mr. Martin Lee's Motion to amend the Film Censorship
were
32
33
Regulations 1987, which was meant
meant to be an interim measure
work pending the passage of the present Bill and which 1 be revoked if and when the present Bill enacted, I said to the
ik
34
effect that for censorship, a negative approach should be
35
tutio
adopted, e, a film should not be banned unless it contravenes
36
one or more of the censorship criteria or standards.
I said
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.