The flood of Hong Kong delegations invited to Beijing after the historic march on July 1 reached a climax on Sept. 27, when a group of business tycoons and their sons and successors were received by top leaders.
The meeting was part of plans by the Chinese 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 Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa (董建華).
The delegation of the super-rich was led by Henry Fok (
It also included Li Ka-shing (
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 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 Hong Kong's affairs, but has never invited so many people to Beijing to give their views.
The visits are not only seen as a slap in the face for Tung, but also pose a danger of reducing his administration to a lame duck. In the future, when controversies arise, the parties concerned may bypass Tung and ask Beijing to intercede. This is not good for "one country, two systems," nor is it 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, Lee Cho-jat (
Li urged the Hong Kong media to be constructive and socially responsible in their criticisms of Hong Kong's government. He said the media should help maintain the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong by supporting Tung and the SAR government. He said supporting communist rule is a core component of the Chinese Constitution and Chinese laws.
Responding to Li's remarks, the South China Morning Post said in an editorial the local media has become well accustomed to receiving advice from Chinese officials on how it should go about its business. The Post observed that Chinese 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 organizations often practice self-censorship, particularly on sensitive issues relating to China or on stories relating to big business and the business tycoons. Recently, some papers 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 preoccupation of many members of the delegation was to find ways to expand their commercial interest in China. Press freedom and media independence 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, including the South China Morning Post, would argue that Chinese 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 in 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 Chinese officials to leave the media alone.
However, when so many people in the media are anxious to capture the Chinese 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 organizations to deliver quality and professional products.
Emily Lau is a legislative councilor in Hong Kong and convener of the Frontier Party.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with