Letter to Hong Kong: By Emily Lau of The Frontier in Hong Kong

28 September 2003

The flood of Hong Kong delegations invited to Beijing after the historic march on July 1 reached a climax on 27 September when a group of business tycoons and their sons and successors were received by top leaders. The meeting was part of plans by the mainland authorities to restore confidence in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) following demonstrations by more than half a million people against the administration of the Chief Executive, Mr Chee-hwa Tung.

The delegation of the super-rich was led by Mr Henry Fok, who is Beijing's most trusted lieutenant in Hong Kong and a vice-president of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC). It also included Mr Li Ka-shing, the SAR's most powerful businessman and his two sons. The CPPCC is the Chinese Communist Party's organ for the United Front, a tactic for winning friends and marginalising enemies.

In spite of the large number of delegations being invited to Beijing, it is doubtful whether the central government will learn the real causes which sparked off the huge demonstrations on July 1. This is because many of the social activists and politicians who took part in the march were excluded by Beijing.

In spite of the momentous developments, the central government has not changed its policy of non-communication with the pro-democracy movement. Like Mr Tung, the Beijing leaders do not want to listen to dissenting views. Given such intransigence and narrow-mindedness, how can they hope to find out what went wrong in Hong Kong?

The large number of delegations going to Beijing is also likely to undermine the SAR's "high degree of autonomy." In the past, the central government has publicly interfered with SAR affairs, but has never invited so many people to Beijing to give their views.

The visits are not only seen as a slap on the face for the Chief Executive, but also pose a danger of reducing the Tung administration to a lame duck. In future, when controversies arise, the parties concerned may bypass Mr Tung and ask Beijing to intercede. This is not good for "one country, two systems" and not good for "a high degree of autonomy."

After the tumultuous developments of July 1, there were expectations that the central and the SAR governments would be more willing to listen to the views of the Hong Kong people. Some people even hope the government and the business community would agree to speed up the pace of democracy, so that the next Chief Executive can be directly elected in 2007. However, when the leaders in Beijing only choose to listen to the tycoons and the business and professional elite, it is not a good omen.

Because so many delegations went to Beijing, the one from the news media did not attract too much attention. The group was led by the chairman of the Newspaper Society, Mr Lee Cho-jat and included media proprietors and senior news executives. The delegation was received by Mr Li Chang-chun, a member of the Standing Committee of the Politburo responsible for propaganda and ideology.

Mr Li urged the Hong Kong media to be constructive and socially responsible in their criticisms of the SAR government. He said the media should help to maintain the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong by supporting Mr Tung and the SAR government. He said supporting communist rule is a core component of the Chinese Constitution and mainland laws.

Responding to Mr Li's remarks, a local English language newspaper the South China Morning Post said in an editorial the local media has become well accustomed to receiving advice from mainland officials on how it should go about its business. The Post observed that mainland officials have abided by the "one country, two systems" policy and restricted their concerns to words, not actions. It also noted that the media has remained independent and robust since the change of sovereignty in 1997.

I do not share such optimism. It is an open secret that a number of news organisations often practise self-censorship, particularly on sensitive issues relating to the mainland or on stories relating to big business and the tycoons. Recently some newspapers have become very cautious and supportive in their coverage of local government news.

In such a climate, any advice given to the heads of the Hong Kong media by a member of the Standing Committee of the Politburo is likely to have the effect of encouraging more timidity and self-censorship, and such interference must be regarded as an anathema to press freedom.

Such concerns are not without justification. The major pre-occupation of many members of the delegation was to find ways to expand their commercial interest in the mainland. Press freedom and independence of the news media was a side issue. In fact during the controversies on legislation relating to Article 23 of the Basic Law, most news proprietors have not uttered a word of dissent.

Some people, including the South China Morning Post, would argue that mainland officials, like anyone else, should be free to express their opinions. However the success of "one country, two systems" is dependent on Beijing's willingness to exercise self-restraint on the affairs of Hong Kong. This includes self-restraint in actions as well as words.

Advice given to the Hong Kong media to support the government will give rise to concerns over freedom of the press. If Hong Kong people cherish an independent, free and vibrant news media, they should urge mainland officials to leave the media alone.

However when so many people in the media are anxious to capture the mainland market or to further their political or commercial interest, press freedom will be relegated to an even lower priority. The only hope is that the consumers, including the viewers, the listeners and the readers will exert pressure on the news organisations to deliver quality and professional products.