§ 42. Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give the content of the sedition published in the Ta Kung Pao of Hong Kong for the publication of which the proprietor and editor were fined on 5th May, 1952.
§ Mr. LytteltonThis newspaper published a misleading and exaggerated account of the disturbance which occurred in Hong Kong on 1st March last. It uttered threats and published inflammatory matter calculated to provoke further disorder and to endanger the peace and security of the Colony.
§ Mr. RankinWill the Minister give us an example of the sentences or phrases which form the basis of the charge which was laid?
§ Mr. LytteltonThe actual matter?
§ Mr. RankinYes.
§ Mr. LytteltonI will not quote to the hon. Member in Chinese, but the substance of the article is understood to have included three points: (1) the riot was provoked by the police in order to arrest patriotic Chinese; (2) it was systematic massacre by the police and the army—in fact no troops were used and no one was killed; and (3) that the Chinese were avenging themselves on the murderous British authorities.
§ Mr. RankinMay we take it that the phrase that "the riot was provoked by the police" will now form the basis of a sedition charge?
§ Mr. LytteltonI am saying no such thing. I have given three instances, at the hon. Gentleman's request, of the nature of the article published. The case was tried in the court and the newspaper was found to be guilty of both subversive and seditious propaganda.