For visitors arriving from places where wealth is displayed less dazzlingly, these are the first symbols of the lavish prosperity of Hong Kong. No other city matches its dash and panache. The mood continues as visitors move to the robot like skyscrapers erected in the central part of Hong Kong island, such as the new Bank of China designed by I.M. Pei, the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Building, and the Exchange Square. The buildings look as if they are competing to see which one will be first to reach the sky, just as people in Hong Kong compete for fame and fortune. Such is the place people call the Pearl of the Orient.
But beneath all the glitter and glamour lurks a dark and foreboding reality. Today Hong Kong is a marvelous free city, but it cannot escape the fate of having its destiny decided by others. The date December 19, 1984 has already affected the stability and prosperity which the people of this "fragrant harbor" have built up over so many years. The chain of events since the signature of the Sino-British Joint Declaration on that decisive day has already shown the people of Hong Kong that they can no longer afford to take freedom under British rule for granted. They must win their own freedom and fight to preserve it under Chinese Communist rule.
Ironically, the chase after personal fortunes, which is so highly valued in Hong Kong, is the very element that has distracted people from pursuing social and political values. Were it not for the Joint Declaration and its aftermath, the consciousness of freedom would never have been aroused in minds preoccupied with figuring out how to turn a better dollar.
Of the many freedoms that the people of Hong Kong are anxious to preserve under mainland China's rule after 1997, two are of special importance to their lives: freedom of the press, and freedom of expression.
Emily Lau, chairperson of the Hong Kong Journalists Association, says: "The freedom of the press is sometimes regarded as the freedom of all freedoms, the linchpin of civil rights. For without a free press, abuse of power by the government, big business, and other influential bodies would never be exposed and opened to criticism. Dissenting views would be suppressed, and the public would as a result be deprived of the information essential for making important decisions."
Lau has long been an active advocate of democracy and freedom of the press. She thinks that the reporter's most important function is to provide objective reports on different opinions from people in all walks of life. But the Hong Kong public often looks upon the press as a kind of social power that balances off the government authorities. Since no opposition party has ever existed in Hong Kong to challenge the government, there has been no political channel for the public to express dissenting views.
Frank Ching—"Subversion can be made to include all kinds of activities, and that would infringe on freedom of the press."
Lau says, "In Hong Kong, where the government is not elected and is thus beyond the reach of direct public pressure, constraints on the freedom of the press might ultimately transform the vibrant and dynamic territory into a closed society. The level of abuse in [mainland] China itself, particularly during the Cultural Revolution, could never have reached the heights it did had there been a free press operating."
The closer the year 1997 comes, the harder it becomes to maintain these freedoms. Although freedom of the press is stipulated in the English-language version of the Sino-British Joint Declaration, the Chinese-language version refers to freedom of publication. Local journalists and the Hong Kong members of the Basic Law Drafting Committee noted this difference, and the result was that a provision regarding freedom of the press was included in the first draft of the Basic Law.
Article 28 of Chapter III reads as follows: "Hong Kong residents shall have freedom of speech, of the press and of publication; freedom of association, to form and join trade unions, and to strike; and freedom of assembly and of demonstration."
Most people find this article disappointingly inadequate to protect the media because of its failure to spell out the essential attributes of freedom of the press. Besides, other provisions in the Basic Law considerably affect how press freedoms will be handled in the future, especially if Peking considers certain material in the media to be damaging to national security, public order, or safety. This possibility arouses concerns that the government could easily find an excuse to restrict the operations of the media because the terms of the law are vague and unclear.
The cause for concern has become even more obvious in the aftermath of the June 4th, 1989 massacre in Peking. The Peking leadership has portrayed Hong Kong as a base for subversion because of the efforts of its people to support the mainland democracy movement with marches, rallies, donations, and assistance to mainland dissidents trying to escape to Hong Kong. Especially irritating to Peking is the way the Hong Kong press has reported the truth about the massacre and has organized campaigns such as the "one letter, one person" program to counter the mainland's news blackout by sending information to relatives and friends in mainland China. Because of the close links between Hong Kong and the mainland, it is difficult to control the flow of such information, which has seriously undermined Peking's effort to whitewash the massacre.
Frank Ching, a former reporter for the New York Times and the Asian Wall Street Journal based in Peking, expresses his concern on this issue: "The question of interpretation is very important. How do you define subversion? Subversion can be made to include all kinds of activities, and that would infringe on freedom of speech and of the press. I think Hong Kong actually should not be a base of subversion against [mainland] China, as long as it does not interfere in Hong Kong under the 'one country, two systems' formula. But the danger is that [mainland] China will retain the power to interfere in Hong Kong and will also impose this anti-subversion clause on Hong Kong, which it may use in the future to inhibit the exercise of basic freedoms."
Another media topic taken for granted—freedom of advertising. A question: should it be?
The subsiding tumult in Peking signals nothing more than the successful persecution of its media and purges of intellectuals who would not surrender their tongues to the regime, After firing a few editors and reporters that the authorities considered supportive of the pro-democracy movement, Peking turned its attention to Hong Kong. Several articles in the Communist Party controlled People's Daily criticized the Hong Kong media for "distortions and sensationalized reporting" concerning the massacre. A speech by Peking Mayor Chen Hsi-tung (Chen Xitong) to the National People's Congress included a detailed collection of "subversive" Hong Kong news accounts. He quoted excerpts from a number of popular Hong Kong newspapers and magazines, including the Wen Wei Po and Ta Kung Pao, two communist-controlled dailies which he singled out because they dared to defy the Peking regime by their accurate reporting and their expressions of editorial outrage at the bloody repression.
Li Tzu-sung, publisher of Hong Kong's Wen Wei Po and a member of the Standing Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference was deeply saddened and disappointed by the savagery used in crushing the pro-democracy movement. He was quoted in the Taipei's Chinese-language China Times of June 5, 1989 as saying: "...I have been a follower of the Communist Party for many years, I am a friend of the Communist Party.... But I have failed in my obligation to say enough and say it early enough to prevent the Communist Party from carrying out this large-scale massacre of its own people. I feel anger and deep regret...."
At the same time, Li announced in a Hong Kong TV interview that the newspaper was going to break away from the Communist Party. He said he regretted being cheated for 50 years and vowed that he would not make the same mistake again by continuing down the wrong road. Li was criticized by left-leaning members of the newspaper and was forced to resign. The Hong Kong Branch of the New China News Agency (NCNA), Peking's unofficial representation in Hong Kong, announced publicly that Li's employment was being terminated.
Lau says: "Some local journalists think it's smart not to write articles which might offend Communist China, especially if the reporter has few chances of leaving. They asked what they would be expected to do if the communists decided to settle accounts with them later, so why make such a fuss about not writing some critical articles. But even worse is the self-censorship practiced by some of the media. They avoid mentioning sensitive matters or they simply tread softly in certain areas so as not to lose advertising revenue from mainland-based organizations. Indeed, some of the bosses of these newspapers have profitable business relationships with Communist China."
The British government is preparing legislation to offer the right of abode in the UK to 50,000 Hong Kong holders of the British Dependent Territories Citizen passport; including families, this would total around 225,000 persons. To prevent freedom of the press from ceasing to exist in the city through the insidious spread of self-censorship, the British government knows that it must back up members of this sensitive profession by providing them with an ultimate escape hatch which they can use if the Peking regime tries to take revenge on people who stand up to it. Without this backup, many of them would no longer be willing to write anything that would antagonize Peking.
Will the Hong Kong newspapers of the next decade be reduced to the quality of the official Peking Daily?
The trend toward self-censorship may reinforce the criticism that Hong Kong journalists already face—that too many of them readily submit when they come under pressure, and their morale is easily broken. But it is asking a lot to expect such heroics from people subjected to very poor working conditions and a low starting salary of about US$375 per month, which is roughly equivalent to the wages of an unskilled electronics factory worker in Hong Kong.
The defection of the chief mainland-funded newspapers has left Peking without any vehicle for launching a media counteroffensive in Hong Kong. Peking can do nothing more than combine threats with promises which it hopes will restore the confidence of the people and maintain stability in the territory. On the whole, Peking has limited itself to verbal attacks, stressing that people have "misunderstood" things.
But incidents such as the Li Tzu-sung affair are a harbinger of highhanded measures "to settle accounts after autumn" (chiu-hou suan-chang). Such dark expectations were further buttressed when two pro-democracy advocates, Martin Lee and Szeto Wah, were kicked off the Basic Law Drafting Committee (BLDC) by Peking. Thus, Hong Kong newsmen have real reason to pause before plunging into a crusade. They have little backing and fewer resources, and past experience tells them that intellectuals—especially newsmen—are always among the first to be purged.
Another warning of things to come came on October 3, 1989. The Hong Kong police went to two Chinese TV stations with search warrants to look for a videotape of a confrontation between the police and the public. It all began with the demonstration of a pro-democracy group called the "April 5th Movement" outside the Hong Kong Branch of the NCNA during the celebration of Communist China's October 1st national day. The police wanted the videotape as evidence in the prosecution of some demonstrators they had arrested.
This was the first time that the authorities in Hong Kong had ever tried to use journalistic material as evidence in such a trial, and it understandably caused a major uproar, especially on the part of the press, which considered this a threat to their independence and ability to function. Whatever the real facts of the case, the press believes that the police action was undertaken in response to pressure from Peking, and it tells them that the future very possibly will include a destiny of yielding to the Communist Party after 1997.
Lau says: "From this incident, we can see what tremendous power the Hong Kong government has to suppress the media, even though it has never been used before. If the government does not act quickly to amend and liberalize laws that directly affect the freedom of the press, then by the time 1997 comes around, the new Hong Kong government will find it easier to curb the freedoms of Hong Kong citizens by arguing that they are merely enforcing an old law, not creating a new one."
Lau cites the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance, which she says contains no definition or guidelines of what constitutes obscene or indecent material. One of the dangers of this ordinance is that "an article may be true though indecent."
As the invisible pressure from Peking grows and its warning voice becomes more strident, the Hong Kong press has been softening its tone when reporting controversial issues. For example, when the direct elections to the Legislative Council of Hong Kong were put off until 1991, it was the foreign newspapers that posted the strongest criticisms of the decision. As Lau said in her article "The Right to Write" in a symposium entitled Basic Law, Basic Questions: "One government-appointed Legislative Councilor even said the foreign press could afford to write the way it did because it had the luxury of not living in Hong Kong. The implication, of course, is that those who live here can't afford to tell the truth."
Nevertheless, some press organizations are fighting back. The Hong Kong Journalists Association is sponsoring public speeches and is meeting with government officials to let them know about their worries concerning press freedom. In 1988 the association sent several members to the United Nations to hear a human rights report by the Hong Kong government. They also sent a delegation to Geneva to give their views on current Hong Kong problems.
Lau concludes: "We are not saying that our press would be anti-communist. We just hope that Hong Kong, as an open society, will be maintained as it is and that we will still enjoy as much freedom of the press and freedom of expression as possible. For this, the press needs the cooperation of the public. Without a joint effort, we can't possibly achieve anything."