Eastweek magazine, owned by tycoon Albert Yeung Sau-shing, has published a paparazzi-style spread on the love life of his son - a week after the magazine was accused of taking editorial instruction from Mr Yeung. The latest issue of Eastweek, published yesterday, carried a cover story detailing a liaison between Gilbert Yeung Kei-lung and underwear model Ambra in a series of pictures taken through his kitchen and bedroom windows. Gilbert Yeung yesterday declined to comment, saying only that he was not going to take any action against the magazine and noting that it was owned by his father. Albert Yeung said he regretted his son's personal life was exposed to the public, but 'running a good publication does not allow any exemption to be granted to any party'. A statement said: 'As an investor in media, he [Mr Yeung] could accept that the personal life of his family and even his own might be open to the surveillance of media.' Eastweek this week responded to criticism of its editorial independence by rival Next magazine by publishing a full-page statement in several Chinese newspapers stressing that its editorial policies were independent of its owner's opinions. The pictures of Gilbert Yeung and Ambra were apparently taken by the paparazzi photographers who followed the pair over a two-day period. Terry Chan Yiu-on, chief operating officer of the New Media Group, which runs Eastweek, said the article was published because its readers were interested in the love lives of celebrities. 'There is no particular reason Gilbert Yeung was chosen except that he is a celebrity,' he said. 'We don't have to prove to our readers that we are independent.' Chris Bale, convenor of the Hong Kong Journalists' Association ethic committee, said: 'From an ethical point of view, this kind of reporting practice is not to be encouraged.' But Mr Bale added that self-regulation was preferable over legislation to control media intrusion into private lives. A Law Reform Commission report in October 2000 proposed to criminalise stalking, which it said was 'a menace to society'. The report, which the Home Affairs Bureau is still studying, was attacked by media groups as an affront to legitimate news gathering. Separate reports on media intrusion and civil liability for invasion of privacy are due at the end of the year.