Hong Kong public libraries should disclose books pulled from shelves, give reasons for censorship so authors can appeal: government adviser
- Member of Public Libraries Advisory Committee also says books about city’s social movements should not be censored, so long as they are factual accounts
- ‘Authors should be informed if their books are removed and offered an explanation,’ committee member adds
Hong Kong’s public libraries should establish a mechanism for disclosing books pulled from their shelves and explain the reasons for the decision to allow authors of censored titles a chance to appeal, a government adviser has said.
Chui Yat-hung, who sits on the Public Libraries Advisory Committee, on Wednesday also said that books about local social movements should not be censored if they were factual accounts of political events, rather than subjective ones.
“They are history after all,” he told a radio programme.
Hours after Chui made the remarks, members of the 23-strong committee were told by its secretariat to refrain from speaking to the media, the Post learned.
Hong Kong public libraries pull books related to Tiananmen Square crackdown
Two school principals, who spoke to the Post on condition of anonymity, said they were confused about whether they could make books removed by authorities available to students.
“The list keeps growing. Could there be an inquiry system for schools to check the suitability of books in question?” a kindergarten principal asked.
As demanded by government auditors, the Leisure and Cultural Services Department, which runs the city’s 71 public libraries, has been ramping up efforts to remove materials “suspected of breaching the national security law or other local laws” for a review.
‘Serving societal interest’: Hong Kong leader defends removal of library books
Chui, a chartered psychologist and social worker, argued it would be more desirable if the authorities listed the books being removed and provided the reasons behind the decisions so people would know where the red line lay.
“The authors should be informed if their books are removed and be offered an explanation,” he said, adding an appeal or review mechanism should also be put in place.
However, Chui also acknowledged the government risked promoting discussions about books it hoped to censor if it disclosed the titles it pulled from shelves.
Following the recent censoring of select titles, a check by the Post found that most books and documentaries about the Tiananmen Square crackdown had been removed from public libraries.
Some books penned by pro-democracy figures, which had been removed from local libraries, were available in major libraries in mainland China. For example, travelogues and martial arts novel reviews by Margaret Ng Ngoi-yee were found on library shelves in Shenzhen, Beijing and Hangzhou.
Chui also admitted it could take time to formulate fair judgments on historical events, but argued books that documented incidents factually without featuring incendiary comments should not be removed from public libraries.
“There is no reason a factual account of events cannot be placed on shelves,” he said.
The committee he sits on advises the government on the development of public libraries.
Another committee member, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said discussions of previous meetings centred on strategies to promote reading and facility upgrades.
He expected members would bring up the issue of improving libraries’ dissemination of information on the removal of books in the committee’s next meeting in June.
Hong Kong’s libraries told to quickly root out books ‘contrary’ to national security
“But this issue will definitely not be a focus of the meeting, as a priority has been formulating strategies to increase library usage. The number of items being pulled is still insignificant when compared with the whole collection,” he said.
While insisting such publications were still available at private bookshops, he did not address whether the city’s freedom of access to information would be undermined if censorship standards were not transparent, as suggested by critics.
