TNAG-1990-FCO40-2823-Broadcasting-in-Hong-Kong-1989 — Page 94

FCO40 Hong Kong Department Records 聯邦事務部香港部檔案 All

CONFIDENTIAL

мко

TOP COPY Q DIST

047256 MDHOAN 4005

CONFIDENTIAL

FM FCO

TO DESKBY 02010OZ HONG KONG

TELNO 304

OF 011645Z FEBRUARY 89

INFO PRIORITY PEKING, UKREP JLG HONG KONG

YOUR TELNO 319: FILM CENSORSHIP:

1.

IF I WERE REAL

WE WERE GRATEFUL FOR THE FULL ANALYSIS IN YOUR TELEGRAM AND FOR THE USEFUL COMMENTS IN PEKING TELNO 126.

2. TAIWAN FILMS ARE NOT THE SORT OF SUBJECT ABOUT WHICH TO HAVE A ROW WITH THE CHINESE. WE RECALL THE DIFFICULTIES THAT QUOTE IF I WERE REAL UNQUOTE CAUSED THIS END WHEN IT WAS SHOWN IN LONDON IN THE EARLY 80S. WE MUST EXPECT PROTESTS THIS TIME TOO. BUT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND IN THE LIGHT OF SIR A DONALD'S ADVICE WE AGREE THAT YOU HAVE TO CONCLUDE THAT THERE ARE NO/NO POLITICAL GROUNDS FOR BANNING THE FILM.

3. IN SPEAKING THE NCNA, WE SUGGEST THAT YOU AVOID USING THE ARGUMENT THAT A BAN WOULD BE OVERTURNED ON APPEAL, SINCE THAT WOULD GIVE THE CHINESE THE IMPRESSION THAT WE NO LONGER HAVE CONTROL OVER THE SHOWING OF FILMS IN HONG KONG. THIS COULD WELL ALARM THEM AND LEAD TO AN EVEN SHARPER REACTION.

4

·

WE VERY MUCH AGREE WITH SIR A DONALD THAT IT WOULD

BE PREFERABLE IF YOU COULD ENSURE THAT THE FILM IS NOT SHOWN DURING ZHOU NAN'S FORTHCOMING VISIT TO HONG KONG. WE HOPE THAT IT MIGHT BE POSSIBLE TO DELAY A DECISION SO THAT THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN. WE ALSO AGREE WITH THE POINT ABOUT THE BASIC LAW IN PARA

2 OF PEKING TUR.

5. SUBJECT TO THESE POINTS, WE ARE CONTENT WITH THE ACTION PROPOSED AND WITH THE LINE YOU PROPOSE TO TAKE WITH NCNA.

HOWE

YYYY

PAGE

1

CONFIDENTIAL

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.