By Lo Fung

Under the new political normal of the administrative bulldozer, the government’s process of pushing policies is increasingly crude. The officials simply put forth the imperious attitude of “whatever I say is the policy”. Once uttered, a policy is finalized and will be implemented as soon as possible. There is no public consultation, and even the directly affected industries and professionals are kept in the dark until the very last moment. There is no room for discussion, negotiation, or coordination.

It was not that long ago when the introduction of overseas doctors was a “masterpiece” of one order, and the Medical Council was not given the right to speak up. Next, the Institute of Certified Public Accountants lost its regulatory powers including issuing practicing certificates and investigating misconduct, which have now been taken over by government-appointed organizations. Even the higher-ups in the Institute had no idea until the official announcement that landed like a shock bomb, but power was already taken away, and it was too late to whine or complain to the media.

The latest “gem” is the amendments to the guidelines for censors under the Film Censorship Ordinance. The framework requires film censors to note whether the films contain contents that endanger national security, such as violent acts of arson and riots that disrupt public order, and whether the contents weaken the public’s law-abiding awareness…If the inspector believes a film contains these situations, it could be banned. Not only that, but even documentaries are subject to censorship. If the inspector finds the content to be biased, contains unverified, false, or misleading narratives, the documentaries could follow the same fate of being banned.

For the film industry, including producers, distributors and cinemas, the new guidelines will drastically alter the ecology and rules of the game of the film industry. It is essentially no different from introducing the mainland’s film censorship practice into Hong Kong. From here on, investors do not have a clear understanding of what movies to produce, film, buy, and air. Millions and even tens of millions of investments might go kaput thanks to inspectors. The direct impact is likely to be huge, and there could be even more catastrophic damages to the ecology of the entire market.

It is precisely that nothing was even hinted prior, for a policy so major, and nobody in the film industry, be it the boss, director, producer, or distributor, none had been asked for comments or to be offered an opportunity for opinions. Not only that, but when the government announced the “new policy”, there was not even a press conference or an official stand-up to explain. It was simply a press release by the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau, the agency in charge, through the Information Services Department. There was no clarification on the meaning, impact, including how the National Security Law red line is being drawn, etc. The film industry, as described by several commentators, has been thrown into the dangerous “red sea” that started as a “red line”.

Whether it was during the British Hong Kong era, or after the Handover, the practice of consulting the industry and the public before any new policies was an approach proven effective. Not only does it alleviate the concerns, but it helps with the acceptance of new measures, and reduces the issues of potential loopholes and implementation. After all, those on the frontline dealing with the policy are the people in the industry and those carrying out the measures, not the high-ranking officials and Administrative Officers whose doors are “always open” in the office. In fact, many details and difficulties in implementation cannot be anticipated by those in the air-conditioned meeting room. The opinions of those in the industry and frontline employees must be taken seriously to reduce errors and to make the implementation process smoother.

Sadly, the SAR government has totally given up on the compulsory practice of consultation in its recent policy changes. Not only are the public denied participation and discussion to express their views, but even industries’ opinions are disregarded and ignored. Immediate implementation is the new thing. Such crude practice has undermined procedural justice (denying those affected to have an opportunity to express their opinions), deviated from the effective public administrative norms that have been around for decades, dug a trap with the new measures to confuse film inspectors and the film industry which could lead to improper implementation (too excessive or lenient), all of which could undermine the effects of the new policy and even bring serious harm to society.

It is obvious that the Hong Kong National Security Law is still a new thing. The courts have not yet developed precedents, and society still has not grasped the provisions of the law. Experienced barristers have no idea how to deal with the law and are still learning and discussing, let alone film inspectors. Under these circumstances, film inspectors are expected to determine by themselves whether the contents of the films violate the National Security Law, whether there are behaviors that are damaging to the public order, and whether violence has been promoted to weaken the public’s law-abiding awareness. To avoid being turned into the targets themselves for “letting slide” films or documentaries that endanger national security, film inspectors are likely to adopt a stricter approach to films that might be exaggerating certain dramatic or artistic effects of conflicts for being detrimental to law-abiding awareness or even endangering national security. Take Hong Kong film Cold War (2012) for example, it depicted internal conflicts among high-ranking police offices, as well as former police management using retired police officers to launch a terrorist attack to seize power. Under the new guidelines, these contents may be regarded as scraping the red line, and could cause the fil to be banned.

It is difficult to evaluate whether the new film guideline by the government would put an end to the Cold War series, but the concern and impact caused to the film industry and cultural creation are already spreading like wild fire. More importantly, such practice of “effective immediately” non-consultation for policy implementation is veering Hong Kong further and further away from the so-called good governance.

This article is translated from Chinese by Apple Daily.

Click here for Chinese version

We invite you to join the conversation by submitting columns to our opinion section: [email protected]

Apple Daily reserves the right to refuse, abridge, alter or edit guest opinion columns for accuracy, length, clarity, and style, and the right to withdraw and withhold columns based on the discretion of our editorial page editors.

The opinions of the writers do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editorial board.

---------------------------------

Apple Daily’s all-new English Edition is now available on the mobile app: bit.ly/2yMMfQE

To download the latest version,

iOS: bit.ly/AD_iOS

Android: bit.ly/AD_android

Or search Appledaily in App Store or Google Play