When Carrie Lam attended the Legislative Council Q&A last week, she proposed that the government legislate to combat false information, immediately causing a huge discussion in society regarding the worries that there will be even more severe suppression on the freedom of speech and the press.

This reminds one of an incident from the past. Since the signing of the Sino-British Joint Declaration in 1984, the British Hong Kong government has set out to promote the development of Hong Kong’s civil society. In 1985, the Legislative Council introduced elections and actively abolished some laws that suppressed human rights and freedoms. Upon assuming the office of Chief Secretary (now known as Chief Secretary for Administration), David Ford proposed the Control of Publications Consolidation (Amendment) Bill 1986 to abolish all provisions in the Bill concerning the control and prohibition of local newspapers and actively weakened the authority of the government to suppress the freedom of the press. Yet it kept the “false news” in Section 6 and be retained as a new Section 27 in the Public Order Ordinance, “persons who wilfully spread false information which is likely to give rise to panic among members of the public” is illegal. Once prosecuted, the defendant has a greater responsibility to prove that he did not intentionally spread false information.

At that time, the government cut the Gordian knot by slashing through from the announcement of the revised provisions to the resumption of the second reading. Not only did the Bar Association, the Law Society, and various journalist organizations raise objections, 41 government lawyers and the registrar have also jointly signed a petition requesting a postponement of the second reading in a rare move. The government, however, insisted on going ahead with it. During the second reading at the Legislative Council, I insisted on the shortcomings of Article 27, stating that when it comes to where confidential government information is involved, many claims are difficult to be verified. The media must choose between the public’s right to know and false reporting. If the penalty is too heavy, the public’s right to know will be compromised. I referenced the U.S. Watergate scandal that brought down the Nixon administration. If the U.S. had laws similar to Article 27 at that time, as long as the President kept on denying, the two Washington Post reporters who exposed the incident would have been thrown into jail for releasing false information. The truth would never have been revealed.

On that day, the meeting at the Legislative Council set two records, one being the longest debate that was a total of eight hours; my very own argument lasted for one hour and 10 minutes. However, the Legislative Council was comprised majorly of appointed members, who eventually passed the bill.

A few days later, I met with Ford. At the meeting, he opened with a sarcastic comment, “You’re incredible, being able to organize such a large-scale opposition within such a short period of time.” I responded, “It wasn’t just me. It was because the opposition party isn’t supportive of me, but that the law was really problematic. If the government wants to abolish the draconian law before the Handover so as to safeguard Hong Kong’s freedom of speech and of the press, then why keep Article 27?” Ford listened, and seemed to have been persuaded by me. He said, “What’s done cannot be undone. We can’t simply go back on our words. Wait till the Legislative Council changes term in 1988, then we’ll amend!” Eventually, the government did go on to revoke Article 27 on December 14, 1988, and the Legislative Council passed the revocation on January 11, 1989.

The ones who use lies to mislead the public are often those in power. In a totalitarian society, only the government has the right to speak about the “truth”. The laws that are made to eliminate false information in the name are doomed to be reduced to tools to suppress dissidents. Those who seek the truth and whistleblowers will be falsely accused and persecuted. In more serious cases, groundless charges would be slapped onto these people, depriving them of freedoms; in lighter cases, those accused would still be stigmatized and eventually even lose their jobs. On February 7 of this year, it was the one-year anniversary of the death of Dr. Li Wenliang, the whistleblower of the novel coronavirus. At first, he was also framed as a rumormonger. It was not until after the fact that his name was cleared and he was honored as a martyr by officials. However, in mainland China, there are still those who revealed the truth to the outside world who have been disappeared and locked up…how are Hongkongers not to worry that the government, enacting a law to crack down on false information, is, in fact, to eliminate dissent and force silence upon the Hong Kong society?

We can only hope for a miracle to happen that would stop the government from proposing the bill. Because once passed, it is for certain that there will not be someone like Ford to take the initiative to set things right.

(Martin Lee is a barrister and founder of Hong Kong’s Democratic Party.)

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