“Freedom of expression in peril”

In the summer of 2003, Hong Kong was in turmoil because the then Chief Executive, Mr Chee-hwa Tung, wanted to bulldoze the National Security Bill through the Legislative Council, the lawmaking body of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR). Not surprisingly, such efforts were strongly resisted by many people in the community, particularly those in the mass media, because they feared such a law would undermine freedom of expression by making “a crime out of free speech.”

The bill was an attempt to implement Article 23 of the Basic Law, a mini constitution of the HKSAR. According to Article 23, the HKSAR shall enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People’s Government, or theft of state secrets, to prohibit foreign political organizations from conducting political activities in the HKSAR, and to prohibit political organizations from establishing ties with foreign political organizations.

During the change of sovereignty in 1997, there was concern that freedoms would diminish and the rule of law could be undermined. Article 23, like the sword of Damocles, has been hanging over the Hong Kong people’s heads, threatening to take away their freedoms.

Ten years after the changeover, some of these worries are beginning to materialise. Under the long shadow of Beijing, a regime that has little tolerance for free speech, an increasing number of Hong Kong people have chosen to practise self censorship, in order not to incur the wrath of Beijing. Many people dare not publicly criticise the HKSAR and central governments lest that might jeopardise their commercial and professional interests. Some even fear they might be victimised because Beijing has a habit of settling accounts with its critics.

In April 2003, I travelled to Sweden to receive the Monismanien Prize for freedom of speech from the Goteborgs Nation of Uppsala University. The prize was founded in 1975 by filmmaker Kenne Fant, whose movie Monismanien 1995 depicted the suppression of the freedom of expression by a ruthless one-party state.

It was a timely award as the Hong Kong people were embroiled in a struggle to defend the freedom of expression. As the Swedes poignantly reminded me, when freedom of expression and freedom of the press are threatened, other freedoms are in peril.

As the summer wore on, opposition to the National Security Bill continued to mount. People’s power reached a climax on 1 July 2003, when more than three quarter of a million people, dressed mostly in black, marched in sweltering heat to denounce the bill. Several days later, the senior government official who spearheaded the bill, Mrs Regina Ip, resigned. So did the unpopular Financial Secretary, Mr Antony Leung.

The 2003 demonstration was unprecedented in Hong Kong history, as there has never been such a big march over a local issue. In June 1989, more than a million people took to the streets, but that was over the massacre in Beijing on June 4th.

The 2003 march rocked Hong Kong to its foundation and showed the people cherished their freedoms. However the march also set alarm bells ringing in the mainland. Seeing such tumultuous development, the leaders in Beijing became concerned that things could get out of hand in the HKSAR.

Until the big march, Beijing was content to let Mr Tung run the show. The demonstration was a watershed. It marked President Hu Jintao’s loss of confidence in Mr Tung. In December 2004 President Hu harshly criticised Mr Tung, the handpicked lieutenant of his predecessor President Jiang Zemin. In March 2005, Mr Tung resigned.

Before that, President Hu decided to take control of the situation in the HKSAR. The first casualty was political reform.
In April 2004, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPC), China’s rubber stamp parliament, announced that there would be no direct elections in the HKSAR in 2007 and 2008.

The Hong Kong people have fought for many years for universal and equal suffrage. They want to have the right to elect the Chief Executive and all 60 members of the Legislative Council by one-person, one-vote. This is also stated as the ultimate goal in the Basic Law.

As for the electoral system in the first 10 years after the handover, the Basic Law stipulates that the Chief Executive and half of the members of the Legislative Council must be selected by limited franchise.

In theory, after 2007, the undemocratic electoral system can be changed, and the Basic Law lays down a mechanism for doing so. It requires the endorsement of two-third of the members of the Legislative Council, the support of the Chief Executive, and the blessing of the central government. To any reasonable person, this seems like an impossible hurdle.

However, after the big march in 2003, the leaders in Beijing did not bother to activate the mechanism in the Basic Law. They decided, without consulting the Hong Kong people, that the process of constitutional development should be abruptly halted. With the stroke of a pen, direct elections in 2007 and 2008 went out of the window.

The central government also concluded the HKSAR news media should be held responsible for whipping up anti-government sentiment, which resulted in the huge protest. Hence the news media became the second casualty.

In the spring of 2004, two popular radio talk-show hosts, Mr Albert Cheng and Mr Wong Yuk-man, unexpectedly stopped broadcasting on Commercial Radio. Although their programmes were popular, and helped the station bring in huge advertising profits, they were taken off the air. Both men claimed they were under pressure to abandon their radio broadcasts.

Although both men claimed their personal safety was at stake, the HKSAR government was unable to offer them any protection. The shutting up of Mr Cheng and Mr Wong was the strongest indication yet that Commercial Radio was under the influence of an invisible hand.

Besides Mr Cheng and Mr Wong, a third radio talk-show host also decided to quit. Mr Allen Lee, a former member of the Executive and Legislative Councils and a delegate to the NPC, told a Legislative Council Home Affairs Panel meeting on 27 May 2004 he decided to quit broadcasting because of a late-night call from a retired mainland official who made references to his wife and daughter.

The experience of the three men sent shock waves throughout the HKSAR. Many people believed they have received pressure from Beijing-related sources. The public also believed Commercial Radio had received similar pressure. Many Hong Kong people felt sad, disappointed and powerless. The episode was a devastating blow to the freedom of expression and showed clearly who was in charge.

Apart from getting rid of the radio talk-show hosts, the invisible hand was also at work muzzling Radio Television Hong Kong (RTHK), which is a government department but has been operating for many years as a public service broadcaster. Many pro-Beijing politicians cannot accept this and put pressure on RTHK to become a government mouthpiece, or at least refrain from making programmes which are critical of the government.

Despite relentless attacks, RTHK has consistently been regarded by the public as well as people in the journalistic profession as a news organisation with the highest credibility rating.

In January 2006, the government of Mr Donald Tsang, who replaced Mr Tung when the latter resigned in March 2005, appointed a panel to review public service broadcasting, but RTHK staffs were convinced they were the real target. After working for more than a year, the panel has yet to publish its report. RTHK staffs are worried because they fear their jobs could be at stake and that the station’s editorial independence might be further undermined.

In addition to targeting the electronic media, the invisible hand also did not spare the print media. On the whole, the mass media became much more self censoring and tame, refraining from publishing articles which would give a negative image of Beijing. The press coverage given to pro-democracy politicians also decreased.

The self censorship by the news media has had a debilitating effect on the society. University academics and professional people become reluctant to publicly express their views. Only some pro-democracy politicians and non-government activists dare to criticise the HKSAR government. However their views were seldom reported.

Also hardly seen in the news media are criticisms of the central government. This disturbing phenomenon is like an infectious disease. If more and more people choose to practise self censorship, Hong Kong’s freedom of expression may vanish, thereby putting all other freedoms in peril.

In April 2005 a shattering incident took place which made many journalists’ blood turned cold. On 22 April, respected journalist Ching Cheong, China correspondent for Singapore’s Straits Times, was detained in Guangzhou. Four months later, he was charged with spying for Taiwan in return for large sums of money.

Mr Ching maintained his innocence. People in business and political circles, including pro-Beijing politicians, pleaded his case in Beijing. However all attempts were in vain.

In August 2006, a court in Beijing jailed Mr Ching for five years. He lodged an appeal, but that was rejected by the Beijing Higher People’s Court in November. Mr Ching’s episode has had a chilling effect not only on journalists but also on people who conduct research on mainland matters. Beijing’s iron-fist handling of Mr Ching’s case is a signal that if journalists dare to pry into sensitive areas, they do it at their own peril.

In October 2006, Hong Kong’s press freedom international ranking slipped to its lowest point in the past five years. According to the annual report by the Paris-based Reporters Without Borders, the HKSAR, which ranked 39th in the world in 2005, fell to 58th – on par with Fiji, Poland and Romania.

The result marks the lowest point Hong Kong has ever reached since Reporters Without Borders began compiling the list in 2002. In that survey, Hong Kong led all of Asia, ranking 18th in the world.

In the past, few journalists would admit to practicing self censorship because it implied the person concerned did not have the courage to resist the pressure. Recently that began to change. The Journalism and Communication Department of the Chinese University recently conducted a survey of local journalists in which the respondents were asked to give ratings on the credibility of local news organisations.

The result, published in December 2006, showed that compared to a similar survey conducted five years ago, the ratings have declined. Of the 24 news organisations which the journalists were asked to assess, the ratings of 23 have declined. The only one that has a higher rating was the Chinese language Apple Daily.

In the electronic media, the news organisation which suffered the biggest drop was Asia Television. In the print media, it was the Sing Tao Daily News. The academics who conducted the survey said the ratings were the lowest ever, and one reason was self censorship.

In January 2007 the Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA) commissioned the Lingnan University to conduct a survey among journalists and members of the public on press freedom in Hong Kong 10 years after the handover and had similar findings.

The result, which was published on 10 February, showed that 58.4% of the journalist respondents think press freedom has deteriorated since the handover, and that was mainly due to self-censorship and the government’s tighter grip on the flow of information.

Views of the public, however, were different. The survey found that 31% of the respondents who are members of the public think the HKSAR enjoys more freedom now than in 1997 and 31% think press freedom is the same as on 1 July 1997. The academics who conducted the study said this shows the public is less sensitive to the issue of press freedom than people within the industry.

On self-censorship, the survey found that 58.5% of the press think that the problem is more serious than 10 years ago because of the tendency to down play negative news about the central government or news which the media suspect would be regarded as sensitive by Beijing. Despite being less sensitive, 43.2% of the public polled also believe self-censorship now is more serious that at the time of the handover.

Almost 40% of the journalist respondents said their colleagues, including supervisors, had practised self-censorship in the last 12 months. And an equally disturbing 30% admitted they themselves had practised self-censorship in the past 12 months.

Despite this unsettling phenomenon, self-censorship is not regarded as the most serious problem facing the industry. According to the survey, the journalist respondents listed their biggest problems as frivolous news, followed by depressed wages and benefits and sensationalism. Self-censorship ranked fourth. To the general public, the most serious problem was news inaccuracy.

During the current so-called election of the Chief Executive, in which only 800 privileged people have the right to vote, the problem of self-censorship was most obvious. Although there are two candidates, the shoo-in is Mr Tsang because he has been anointed by Beijing. His challenger Mr Alan Leong of the Civic Party has no chance of winning.

Thus the “contest” was lop-sided from the start. Acting as if they are part of Mr Tsang election machine, most the news media gave extensive coverage to his election campaign. Views of people who boycott the small circle election because it is neither free nor fair are almost completely ignored, unless there is a noisy demonstration. The impression given by the media is that it is “an almost real election.”

Furthermore, some news media allow themselves to be used as political tools. In order to boost Mr Tsang’s campaign, the media act in concert to present an image of a prosperous and stable society. Some news media bend over backwards to boost the feel good factor, thereby giving credit to Mr Tsang. Fortunately, the news media can only fool some of the people some of the time, and not all of the people all of the time.

As the HKSAR enters its 10th anniversary, there are signs everywhere that the news media have come under political and commercial pressure due to the influence of Beijing. The morale of the news profession is as low as the wages and on-the-job training is almost non existent.

An increasing number of reporters and editors choose to practise self censorship as a form of survival. This is an alarming trend and does not bode well for the future. If the media remain silent, the voices of the people will not be heard.

For the time being, despite the adversity, Hong Kong is still the freest city in China. In order to safeguard Hong Kong’s freedoms, the people need to be eternally vigilant. We hope our friends in the international community will cast a watchful eye over us.