------------------------------------------------------------ For Immediate Release September 20, 1995 Tobacco Institute of Hong Kong Limited September 20, 1995 NEW LAWS WILL ALARM COMMUNITY A Government plan to hastily introduce a wide range of restrictive new laws in Hong Kong before the end of the year has been criticised as serving to heighten public and business concern about the pace of change occurring in the territory. The Chairman of the Tobacco Institute of Hong Kong, Mr Robert Fletcher, said today that legislation proposed by the Health & Welfare Branch to prohibit smoking goes "light years beyond its intended targets and will create shock waves which will be felt throughout the entire community." "The extensive controls, severe restrictions and major changes contained in the new legislation are entirely inappropriate for Hong Kong at this time,it he said. "That the laws are being pushed through rapidly and without any form of consultation is even more alarming." Mr Fletcher said that the Health & Welfare Branch has not yet made public the actual legislation it is proposing, but the outline it has given of the intended prohibitions shows them to be "amazingly irrelevant" to the Hong Kong situation. Room 1807 Harbour Centre 25 Harbour Road Wanchai Hong Kong Telephone: 2827 7383 Telex: 76890 HX Fax: 2827 4799 Cable: TOBACO HONG KONG 2 "The laws are a grab-bag of heavy-handed restrictions taken from other countries, and many have been imposed by extreme, authoritarian or paternalistic governments. "In some cases, the bans and controls being proposed in Hong Kong have been rejected as being irrelevant and ineffective by open, democratic governments -- including the UK government. "Some of the new laws are just nonsensical and indicate overzealousness as well as a pettiness that borders on the punitive. For example, it is intended that a law be passed to ban all cigarette vending machines when in fact we are aware of only one in the whole territory, located in a bar which should only cater for an adult clientele." Mr Fletcher said in pressing for the new legislation the Health & Welfare Branch "has provided little justification for the oppressive measures". "Even if the Government believes the community approves the principle of anti-tobacco measures this does not give it a mandate to introduce the wide-ranging and restrictive laws it is now proposing. No one in the community, including those who will be most affected by the laws, is being given a chance to discuss them with Government. 3 "Moreover, the statistics and research the Government is using in defence of the measures are far from reliable. The Government has admitted that it does not possess figures on mortality rates attributed to smoking and relies on statistical estimates. They have also chosen to ignore the vast majority of available studies and information on the subject." Mr Fletcher added that when viewed by independent and objective opinion much of the supportive information put forward by the Health & Welfare Branch "does not hold water". "In Canada, where the courts were called upon to objectively assess the support being provided by the Government to justify similar measures being forced on to the law books in Hong Kong an impartial judgement was made that the case could not be proven. "In other societies where the rule of law is given more than lip service and the views of the community are genuinely taken into account, the harsh and ill-considered legislation proposed by the Health & Welfare Branch would be considered inappropriate. Given Hong Kong's unique position with regards the transition in 1997, it presents a far more sinister message to the commercial world." 4 "Under guidelines for good public policy, the Health & Welfare Branch fails on every criteria. They have not shown that the laws are necessary; and they are unable to show that they will be effective. Furthermore, as the laws come into full play in 24 months time, one would think the Government should be focusing an defending existing freedoms, rather than introducing new restrictions which they won't be around to enforce." Mr Fletcher said that the members of the Tobacco Institute will be seeking to voice their opposition to each item proposed in the new restrictions, as well as the legislation as a whole. Issued by: Tobacco Institute of Hong Kong Limited (Press enquiries; Ms Hayley Kan, tel: 2827 7383) Tobacco Institute of Hong Kong Limited For Immediate Release September 22, 1995 TOBACCO ADVERTISING BANS IN HONG KONG "UNSUPPORTABLE" AFTER CANADIAN RULING The Tobacco Institute of Hong Kong today welcomed the ruling by the Canadian Supreme Court of Canada that a ban on tobacco advertising is "unconstitutional" and a violation of the rights of freedom of Expression as protected through the Canadian Bill of Rights. "This ruling is very relevant to Hong Kong where the Health & Welfare Branch is currently proposing legislation that goes even further than the bans in Canada, and where individual basic rights and freedoms are equally protected through Hong Kong's own Bill of Rights." said Robert Fletcher, Chairman of the Tobacco Institute. Room 1807 Harbour Centre 25 Harbour Road Wanchai Hong Kong Telephone: 2827 7383 Telex: 76890 HX Fax: 2827 4799 Cable: TOBACO HONG KONG 2 "This ruling represents the culmination of seven years legal review of the issue, and consideration of all the evidence regarding tobacco advertising and consumption. Given that the Supreme court found "there was no direct evidence of a scientific nature showing a causal link between advertising bans and decrease in consumption," it would appear almost irresponsible for Health and Welfare to forge ahead with its proposals. "Basically, the Canadian courts confirmed what we have been trying to explain to Health & Welfare Branch that nowhere in the world have tobacco advertising bans achieved their intended result of reducing tobacco consumption or stopping young people from smoking. Without this, such bans represent the removal of legitimate freedoms, without providing any benefit to public health, a fact that now must be beyond question. "In coming to this conclusion, the Canadian courts reviewed testimony from 28 expert witnesses in fields ranging from marketing and advertising to public health, and 560 exhibits containing tens of thousands of pages on every conceivable aspect of the advertising-smoking question. 3 Mr Fletcher said that the Canadian court case also demonstrated that the Health & Welfare Branch cannot overule Hong Kong's Bill of Rights by simply claiming that health concerns have a higher priority than individual rights. "The whole purpose and intent of the Bill of Rights serves to protect individuals, not those in power. As such the onus is on the Health & Welfare Branch to provide justification for the removal of any freedoms and as the Canadian experience shows, this cannot be done," he said. He added that statements being made by the Health & Welfare Branch in response to criticisms of the proposed legislation are inaccurate and misleading. "It is untrue that the public has been consulted on the proposed laws. The views obtained on general policy three years ago do not constitute consultation on the specific and onerous laws now being put forward. "Meaningful consultation has not been undertaken with the tobacco industry either. A meeting was held, at our instigation, but no attempt was made by Health & Welfare Branch to discuss the widesweeping bans and prohibitions prior to making them public in August. 4 Mr Fletcher said that the Health & Welfare Branch appears to be trying to "downplay" the extent of the proposed legislation and then present it as a fait accompli to the people of Hong Kong. "In its statements it continually refers to advertising bans but the laws it intends introducing go way beyond removal of advertising. A close look at what is being planned reveals attempts to introduce controls and restrictions which affect the lives, livelihood and operations of many people, companies, organisations and bodies throughout Hong Kong, "In light of the outcome of the Canadian Supreme Court ruling and the implications it has for the rights of people in Hong Kong, Health and Welfare Branch should reexamine its plans and refrain from putting forward legislation that knowingly removes legitimate freedoms without any justification or evidence of public benefit," Issued by: Tobacco Institute of Hong Kong Limited (Press enquiries: Ms Hayley Kan, tel: 2827 7383) Tobacco Institute of Hong Kong Limited WHAT THE NEW ANTI-SMOKING LAWS REALLY MEAN If you think that the proposed new anti-tobacco laws will only affect smokers, think again. The anti-tobacco lobby has stated that the laws, as outlined by the Health & Welfare Branch, are "extremely modest'. Here is what they will actually do: * Adults may be prosecuted for wearing a favourite T-shirt or cap if it has a name on it which is the same as the name of a cigarette brand * No adult smoker will be allowed to give another a free cigarette as this might be considered "promoting" smoking. You will become a criminal if you do * Law abiding members of the public who smoke may become subject to prosecution when visiting various premises (such as restaurants, banks, shopping centres) and be made to pay anti-smoking fines of up to HK$5,000 -- at the sole discretion of the manager of the premises * Film producers or television stations may be prosecuted if they film a drama, comedy or musical, or cover a sporting or cultural event where a cigarette or tobacco advertisement can be seen -- even in the background * Audiences may be denied the right to see films, television shows or televised events -- whether filmed in Hong Kong or elsewhere in the world -- if they contain a scene showing someone smoking or a tobacco product trademark * Shows like Phantom of the Opera and sports stars such as Michael Chang will not be seen in Hong Kong, because tobacco companies will be prevented from sponsoring cultural and sports events * All locally printed publications will lose the right to accept tobacco company advertising revenue. Imported publications featuring tobacco advertising, such as Time and Newsweek, may not be available on newstands 2 * Hong Kong's tobacco companies will be prohibited from advertising recruitment ads, annual results, sporting or cultural sponsorships, congratulatory messages, classified notices etc. * There will be a new definition given to the word "advertisement". Anyone displaying side-by-side more than one package of a cigarette brand becomes a criminal and may be prosecuted * Adults will be prohibited from participating in any contest, promotion or lucky draw etc. involving tobacco products * Adults will lose their right to receive information about a legal product, which they choose to use, limiting freedom of choice -- a right that is protected by the Hong Kong Bill of Rights * Businesses selling clothes, music recording or services which features a trademark similar to a tobacco brand may be forced to close * Elderly smokers of packs of 10 cigarettes will be forced to pay more, as the smaller packs will be banned * Some smokers will lose their favourite brands because they will be unable to buy those which contain between one and three milligrams of tar more than the other cigarettes on the market * It will be against the law to reduce the price of cigarettes. Even if there is a tax drop, the saving cannot be passed on to consumers * As a result of an advertising ban many millions of dollars will be removed from the Hong Kong economy * Cigarette manufacturers will be forced to spend millions of dollars to change the packaging of all cigarette brands because Health & Welfare Branch believes the warnings are insufficiently prominent on some brands -- but not all. Such costs will be passed on to consumers * Building owners, companies, shops and other members of the public who currently rent advertising space to tobacco companies will be denied this revenue * Some popular cigarette brands will no longer be available because their names do not suit new formulation requirements of the Health & Welfare Branch. Tobacco Institute of Hong Kong Limited For Immediate Release November 29, 1995 HEALTH & WELFARE BRANCH PLAN RAISES BILL OF RIGHTS ISSUES Tobacco advertising ban legislation which the Hong Kong Government's Health and Welfare Branch intends to introduce will infringe the Bill of Rights. This was stated in Hong Kong today by a prominent lawyer who was involved in a recent Canadian Supreme Court case which ruled unconstitutional a similar Canadian tobacco advertising ban. "The Canadian situation is similar to Hong Kong's in that both jurisdictions grant constitutional protection to freedom of speech, including commercial speech. Before removing freedoms guaranteed under the Bill of Rights the Government must prove that the law is necessary," said Mr Colin Irving, a partner in the Canadian law firm McMaster Meighen, in the Canadian case, after extensive expert witness testimony, the government was not able to prove a scientific connection between advertising and public health. Room 1807 Harbour Centre 25 Harbour Road Wanchai Hong Kong Telephone: 2827 7383 Telex: 76890 HX Fax: 2827 4799 Cable: TOBACO HONG KONG 2 "Under the Hong Kong Bill of Rights the Hong Kong Government should have the same obligation to show that the health of the community will be served by removing the freedom to advertise," he said. "If it could do so on the basis of an assumption or an unsubstantiated belief the Bill of Rights has no real value. "In Canada the court found that the empirical evidence put forward to show a link between tobacco advertising and the incidence of smoking lacked scientific objectivity and rigour. It contained serious methodological flaws which rendered it for all intents and purposes devoid of any probative value. "On the evidence as a whole, the court found that it amounted to nothing more than speculation." Mr R J Fletcher, Chairman of the Tobacco Institute of Hong Kong stated that the Canadian court case provides an important precedent as the proposals by the Health and Welfare Branch go even further than the advertising bans which were judged an infringement of rights in Canada. "The Canadian ban was partial, while the proposal by Health and Welfare Branch is total, even extending to a ban on sports and cultural sponsorships, he said. Mr Fletcher said that advertising bans have no effect on prior consumption trends. 3 "In some countries that have imposed total advertising bans, such as Canada, Singapore, Portugal, Iceland, Finland and Norway, consumption rates have remained constant or indeed actually increased," he said. "On the other hand, in Hong Kong, where advertising competition among tobacco companies is fierce, we have the lowest smoking population incidence in East Asia, and consumption has been steadily declining since the early 1980s." Mr Fletcher said that as consumption has declined, the market shares of various brands have changed dramatically since 1980." As with all mature market categories, advertising can only serve to maintain existing share for individual brands or try to interest current smokers in switching to other brands," he said. "In the same way, companies that advertise soap or laundry detergent do so solely to influence choice of brands, not to persuade people to wash more, often. "The evidence in Hong Kong, and the evidence examined from around the world in the Canadian court case, clearly proves what the tobacco industry has contended for many year: advertising does not influence overall consumption levels. 4 "Tobacco advertising does not make people smoke. The only people who believe otherwise are the anti-smoking lobby who are themselves nonsmokers," Issued by: Tobacco Institute of Hong Kong Limited (Press enquiries: Ms Hayley Kan, tel: 2827 7383)