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.
The international women’s soccer match between Taiwan and New Zealand at the Kaohsiung Nanzih Football Stadium, scheduled for Tuesday last week, was canceled at the last minute amid safety concerns over poor field conditions raised by the visiting team. The Football Ferns, as New Zealand’s women’s soccer team are known, had arrived in Taiwan one week earlier to prepare and soon raised their concerns. Efforts were made to improve the field, but the replacement patches of grass could not grow fast enough. The Football Ferns canceled the closed-door training match and then days later, the main event against Team Taiwan. The safety
There are moments in history when America has turned its back on its principles and withdrawn from past commitments in service of higher goals. For example, US-Soviet Cold War competition compelled America to make a range of deals with unsavory and undemocratic figures across Latin America and Africa in service of geostrategic aims. The United States overlooked mass atrocities against the Bengali population in modern-day Bangladesh in the early 1970s in service of its tilt toward Pakistan, a relationship the Nixon administration deemed critical to its larger aims in developing relations with China. Then, of course, America switched diplomatic recognition
The National Immigration Agency on Tuesday said it had notified some naturalized citizens from China that they still had to renounce their People’s Republic of China (PRC) citizenship. They must provide proof that they have canceled their household registration in China within three months of the receipt of the notice. If they do not, the agency said it would cancel their household registration in Taiwan. Chinese are required to give up their PRC citizenship and household registration to become Republic of China (ROC) nationals, Mainland Affairs Council Minister Chiu Chui-cheng (邱垂正) said. He was referring to Article 9-1 of the Act
Strategic thinker Carl von Clausewitz has said that “war is politics by other means,” while investment guru Warren Buffett has said that “tariffs are an act of war.” Both aphorisms apply to China, which has long been engaged in a multifront political, economic and informational war against the US and the rest of the West. Kinetically also, China has launched the early stages of actual global conflict with its threats and aggressive moves against Taiwan, the Philippines and Japan, and its support for North Korea’s reckless actions against South Korea that could reignite the Korean War. Former US presidents Barack Obama
RSS