TNAG-1735-FCO40-2448-Minutes-and-Hansards-of-the-Legislative-Council-of-Hong-Kong-1988 — Page 160

1422

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

18 May 1988

MR. CHEONG: Sir, before debating the provisions of this particular Bill, I believe it is important to recognise the background leading to its introduction.

Fourteen months ago, an article appeared in a leading newspaper in Hong Kong, possibly using government confidential documents as a source, exposed possible legal deficiencies on the guidance notes issued to our film censors. As a result, questions were raised on the legality of government's practice of censoring films. There were quite a lot of adverse comments on the government's oversight. When the issue was discussed in the Legislative Council in-house meeting, we were unanimous in our view that steps had to be taken to correct the anomaly. The Administration agreed and also at the same time taking the opportunity to review in depth the principles and practices of film censorship, published a White Bill for public consultation. A Legislative Council ad hoc group was formed to study this issue.

As a result of our deliberations and with the help from the film industry and the Administration, it is fair to say that many improvements have been made. The final package, as presented today, is a much improved package over the original White Bill. I have no doubt this package will be acceptable to a great majority of our community. I will not wish to go into great details on what had been achieved by the group, but suffice only to say that our effects have produced general satisfaction with all parties concerned. I would simply like, Sir, to urge hon. Members of this Council to take three points into considera- tion when deciding to vote 'yes' or 'no' to this Bill.

First, the practice of film censorship in Hong Kong including censoring films that may damage good relationship with other countries had been going on 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, culture or to be entertained by films shown in Hong Kong. Nor did 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 public- ations 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 they would not call for less or even 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.

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. They have zeroed in from a political angle and tried to propagate a notion that this clause will give rise to a situation whereby after 1997, Hong Kong's freedom of expression will be curtailed. They opine that whereas the Administration under the British flag can be trusted to respect the