11
September 2003
(The
writer is a member of Hong Kong's Legislative Council)
My visit to Taipei in mid-August
to attend a seminar on Hong Kong under "one-country, two-systems" has
stirred up a hornet's nest. The Chinese Communist news media and people from
the pro-Beijing camp have launched Cultural Revolution-like attacks on me
because I had the temerity to attend a function organized by Taiwan Advocates,
a think-tank led by former Taiwan President Lee Teng-hui who supports Taiwan
independence.
According to the sycophantic
communist news media, attending the seminar was equivalent to supporting Taiwan
independence. The English China Daily went further, saying that I "would
most probably incite a referendum to decide on Hong Kong's independence and
commit the crime of secession." Remarks by newly appointed Hong Kong
Secretary for Security Ambrose Lee saying that my words and actions had not
infringed the legislative proposals stemming from Basic Law Article 23 were
ignored.
Apart from myself, over 20 Hong
Kong academics and journalists attended the seminar in Taipei. But I was
singled out for malicious attacks that were aimed at creating a chilling effect
to deter similar contacts between the two peoples. The assault on me was also
aimed at diverting attention from the aftermath of the I July demonstration
which attracted well over half a million people protesting against the
administration of Mr Tung.
The despicable tactics used
against me are bound to have a detrimental impact, not only on freedom of
expression but also academic and journalistic freedoms. People from the
universities and the news media may not want to engage in dialogue with the
Taiwan people lest they should come under similar attacks like me. How can this
serve the interest of China or Hong Kong?
My other big "crime" was
to have said that the future of Taiwan should be determined by the people of
Taiwan. Pro-Beijing factions argued that any open support for the concept of
self-determination by Chinese residents in Taiwan may result in the secession
of Taiwan. The ironic implication is that they apparently believe that if the
Taiwan people were given a free choice, they would opt for independence.
My views on self-determination are
not new. In the early 1980s, when Britain and China held talks on the future of
Hong Kong, I said the future of the colony should be decided by its residents.
In May 2000, I made similar remarks at a Legislative Council motion debate on
opposing Taiwan independence. At that time, it did not stir up any interest.
I understand it is the policy of
the Chinese government that Taiwan is a part of China, and Beijing would like
to use the "one-country, two systems" model to take back Taiwan.
However it is one thing for the central government to have such a policy, but
the people should have the freedom to express opposing views.
This should be particularly so in
Hong Kong. When Britain handed Hong Kong over to China in 1997, the people were
promised that the freedoms we enjoyed before the change in sovereignty would be
preserved for 50 years. We were never told that our freedom of expression did
not include the right to voice dissenting views on central government policies.
Yet the verbal attacks on me and a
more physical one on my Shatin ward office on 3 September have filled me and my
supporters with revulsion and contempt. When more than half a million people
took to the streets on 1 July, the international community was deeply impressed
with the peaceful and orderly demonstrations. But when an elected legislator's
ward office is viciously attacked, shouldn't it raise questions about the rule
of law?
Because of my outspokenness, I
have been banned from travelling to the mainland for almost 10 years now. This
is part of Beijing's tactic to marginalize its critics. But are the recent
attacks on me a part of the central government's policy on Taiwan? What would
the Taiwan people think when they see that a Hong Kong Special Administrative
Region legislator cannot have the freedom to attend a seminar and to say that
the future of Taiwan is up to Taiwan's people? They must wonder what freedom
Hong Kong people enjoy under "one country, two systems."
No doubt the powers that be want
to "kill the chicken in order to scare the monkey," to use a Chinese
proverb. But do they know that they have also put off many people in Taiwan and
in the international community? If Hong Kong people cannot enjoy basic
freedoms, how can anyone believe that Hong Kong's broader lifestyle will be
preserved for the full 50 years as promised?
On September 5, Tung said his
administration would withdraw the controversial bill on Article 23 from the
legislature. This was an attempt to pacify the jittery public. However, the
attacks I have had to endure showed that even without such harsh laws, Hong
Kong people's freedom to voice dissenting views already is in grave doubt.