The judiciary is shaking up the much criticised Obscene Articles Tribunal - which once ruled a picture of Michelangelo's David unsuitable for young Hong Kong eyes - by almost doubling its pool of adjudicators and capping their service at nine years.
Some adjudicators have been on the panel for more than 20 years.
However, a legal scholar says the measures will not, by themselves, solve fundamental problems with the system for vetting publications and exhibitions, which has been severely criticised in recent years for insufficient representation of adjudicators and their inconsistent rulings.
Since it was set up in 1987 the tribunal has had sole legal authority to decide what should or should not be allowed under the obscenity law. The law does not define what constitutes obscenity or indecency, leaving it to the tribunal to interpret 'the generally accepted standard of morality in the community'.
The tribunal can restrict viewing of an item by rating it Class II, meaning it is indecent and available to adults only, or ban it by rating it Class III (obscene).
Two to four adjudicators are randomly drawn from a pool of 270 to make decisions under the guidance of a presiding judge on articles submitted by the courts, law enforcement agencies and publishers.