TNAG-1735-FCO40-2448-Minutes-and-Hansards-of-the-Legislative-Council-of-Hong-Kong-1988 — Page 186

1448

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 May 1988

Sir, some of Mr. LEE's arguments may well be irrelevant, for example, the illegality of the previous Film Censorship Note of Guidance and so on, the insistence of the phrase 'take into account' instead of 'comply with', indicating Administration's intention to pay lip service and so on. However, on the whole, he has put up a very strong case and I am sure all Members share his conviction that Hong Kong survives and thrives because of our free institutions and that liberties should not be eroded, lest we chip away the single most important pillar we stand on.

Sir, on balance I support Mr. Martin LEE'S amendment rather than Mr. P. K. YEUNG'S amendment.

MR. CHEONG: Sir, I am a Member of the ad hoc group. I would like to correct one possible misimpression given to Members, and that is as if all the arguments that are forwarded this afternoon in support of the Mr. Martin LEE'S amendment, were new grounds; in fact, they were not, Sir.

Throughout the past 14 months, we have discussed this particular issue, in the first place, as to whether or not Hong Kong needs a clause for the Admini- stration to have a measure of control over films and the films censorship. The principle has been fully discussed. Everything, in fact, centred around this particular principle, and required all of us, in the hope of finding consensus, to conduct 37 meetings.

No doubt I agree with Mr. Andrew WONG that Hong Kong is a free place. We respect each and everyone's liberty. I hope that what I am going to say is taken with the same respect, not only by Members of this Council, but by the rest of Hong Kong, because it is important to recognise, in discussing this particular issue, that first it is said that Government, by having this particular clause together with Mr. YEUNG'S amendment, is acting against the International Covenant. Repeatedly, whether people believe it or not, there is legal advice being sought to clarify this particular point, and the majority of the ad hoc group members is satisfied that this particular point has been clarified by lawyers.

Second, when we consider whether we need this particular clause, it has something to do with the fact that in the International Covenant, the concept of ordre public which is in French, is terribly confusing, and if we were to have in the amended version of the Bill 'comply with', it will be difficult to have the censors and the administrators to interpret by themselves that margin of appreciation, without clear understanding of what it meant.

As Mr. YEUNG has clearly explained in his speech, we have taken into consideration of their concerns and of the need to maintain freedom of expression. We have agreed the version 'to take account' because we have to consider the practical effects as well as the theory.

Sir, I support Mr. YEUNG's amendment.