FBIS-CHI-92-113
11 June 1992
HONG KONG & MACAO
result in an offence or other related consequences; and special investigations under statutory warrant.
Mr Morris rejected suggestions that the law was intended to muzzle the press.
"It's in no way a press gag. It is not directed at the press per se at all," he said.
"It is directed properly at protecting information that needs to be protected.'
Mr Morris said enacting a localised legislation on official secrets required consultation with the Chinese Government.
"This (the 1989 version of the act) is a legislation which will not be applied to Hong Kong after 1997 by virtue of its nature," Mr Morris said.
Introduction of a localised law was a complicated pro- cess which would need to be considered in conjunction with the rest of the Official Secrets Act already applied to Hong Kong, the said.
"We have to consider consultation with the Chinese over any piece of legislation which we hope to transcend 1997."
The deadline for taking a decision is June 30, 1997 and Mr Morris said the Government would obviously hope to decide on that well become the transition of Hong Kong's sovereignty to Chinese rule.
As a British legislation, the 1989 Official Secrets Act would be immune from challenges under the Bill of Rights and would not be subject to the Letters Patent as well.
Although the act would not be subject to the Bill of Rights, Mr Morris stressed that it did not mean it was incompatible with the human rights legislation.
Mr Morris said the Government was also currently reviewing the Civil Service Regulations (CSR) and the grading system of government documents to ensure they were in line with the spirit of the liberalised act.
The intention was to review the CSR to allow more information to be disclosed.
Conceding that there were occasions where government documents were overgraded, Mr Morris said the Gov- ernment had been constantly trying to get the message to civil servants at all levels that information should be graded appropriately.
"We obviously want to ensure overgrading is eliminated as much as possible,” he said.
A government spokesman said the new legislation focused not on the act of disclosure alone but on the nature of the information revealed as well as the damage arising from that.
555
The act provided for damage tests and it would be for a court alone to determine whether an offence had been committed, he said.
The prosecution would have to satisfy specific tests of damage for cases involving unauthorised disclosure by most people.
The spokesman said the maximum penalty for offences under the act is imprisonment for two years or a fine of $500,000, or both.
The Hong Kong Journalists' Association said last night that while the new act showed some improvement on the old version, it still did not go far enough.
It reiterated its call for the enactment of a freedom of information act.
Article Attacks Jurists' Report on Hong Kong HK0506075092 Beijing FAZHI RIBAO in Chinese 17 May 92 p 4
["International forum" article by staff reporter Zhang Junli (1728 6511 0500): “Unlawful Move by Interna- tional Law Jurists-Comments on 'Countdown to 1997' Report"]
[Text] All good, honest, and upright people have expressed a universal welcome to and appreciation for the proper solution by China and Britain of the Hong Kong problem, which was left over from history, through consultations. However, a small number of people harbor malicious intentions, find fault, look for so-called "loopholes" in the Sino-British Joint Declaration, and hurl various censures at China and Britain in an attempt to hinder China from resuming sovereignty over Hong Kong. The "Countdown to 1997” report recently pub- lished by the International Committee of Jurists belongs to this type.
19
According to reports in Hong Kong newspapers, the "report" was written by a delegation comprising “several lawyers who practice international law” after the delegation came to Hong Kong last June to conduct a 10-day investi- gation and study of several documents on Hong Kong's transfer of sovereignty. These "international law lawyers,' who consider themselves no ordinary beings, went so far as to ignore the basic principles of international law, wantonly interfered in Hong Kong affairs, and babbled about “Sino- British talks neglected the Hong Kong people's human rights" and that “the Joint Declaration does not vest the Hong Kong people with the right of self-determination and, therefore, obviously violates international law." They also maintained that Hong Kong should set up a human rights committee to supervise Hong Kong's progress in human rights, and so on.
People in the world all know that Hong Kong has been China's territory from time immemorial and was occu- pied by Britain after the Opium War in 1840. This problem left over by history has been appropriately
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.