" the general provisions of the data protection law should apply to data controlled or processed in Hong Kong. However, such general wordings were only used in the introductory and concluding sections. In the section which sets out the contents of discussion, for example, in chapter 17.17， the context is an analysis of the three recommended ways of providing transborder data protection, which is very specific and was followed by an example of data being transferred from France to Hong Kong. In the , premises, similarly to the Board s observation about the difference between general provisions of data protection law in the Ordinance and section 33 about transborder protection above, the parts in chapter 17 relied on by the Appellant do not assist the Appellant. t 59. The Appellant submitted that as the LRC changed its recommendations from control only, as stated in the LRC Paper, to both control and processing, as stated in the LRC Report, it is the intent of the legislature that the territorial jurisdiction of the Ordinance, which is based on the LRC Report, is expanded. The Board disagrees. The change recommended by the LRC, if any, is the recommended scope of provisions on " transborder data flow “ only. The same limitation appears in the parts of the EU Draft Directive and the EU GDPR relied on by the Appellant. Besides, there is a further requirement under Article 4(2) of the EU Draft Directive for designation by a controller not established in the territory of a representative established therein. The above demonstrate that there is nothing in the LRC Report which supports the contention of the Appellant. 60. The Board considers that the scope and provisions of section 33 of the Ordinance, which deal with a specific area of transborder transfer of data do not suggest any intention of the legislature to wider the 48