TNAG-2862-FCO40-4116-Article-XIX-(lobby-group-for-press-freedom)-and-Hong-Kong-Jo-1993 — Page 101

Urgent Business: Hong Kong, Freedom of Expression and 1997

INTRODUCTION

The main purpose of this report is to demonstrate the serious threats to freedom of expression posed by the transition to Chinese rule. These threats are not limited to the fear of what might happen after 1997, based on what we already know of China's response to the pro-democracy movement in June 1989: they arise equally from the legislative and constitutional arrangements for the handover to China.

The report will be used by the Hong Kong Journalists Association and ARTICLE 19 as the basis for campaigning to ensure legal safeguards for one of the most fundamental of all human rights: the right to freedom of expression, of which press freedom is a vital component.

The focus of the report is on the potential which exists for abuse of the right to freedom of expression, how these dangers arose and, most importantly, how they can be urgently addressed. In the recommendation section we set out changes which, in our opinion, must be enacted if free expression is to be protected.

The auguries are not good: The now familiar slogan of "one country, two systems" has worn thin and China's real intentions, according to many observers, were revealed in the actions taken in Hong Kong as well as on the mainland in the immediate aftermath of the 1989 massacre. Furthermore, as the details of the UK's "smooth transition" policy have become more public, it is clear that there has been an absence of commitment on the part of the UK in confronting China with the need to protect human rights including free speech and a free press. The policy of "convergence" has led to the ceding to the National People's Congress of the Chinese Communist Party of the right to final adjudication and interpretation on all constitutional matters as from 1 July 1997 in contravention of the Joint Declaration. The dangerous inconsistencies between what is to be the new constitution, the Basic Law, and the Bill of Rights could well be exploited in this context allowing China to impose its own highly restrictive perception of freedom of expression on Hong Kong.

Grave concerns are put forward about the array of repressive colonial laws which have been used selectively to suppress freedom of expression and which imperil the exercise of this right after 1997. We argue in the strongest terms for their repeal or amendment. We believe, despite the auguries, that much can be done in the next four and a half years to protect freedom of expression, but that unless there are strenuous campaigning efforts it is very doubtful that this fundamental right can be protected. While we recognize that there are those who continue to believe that confrontation with China will bring no good but on the contrary provoke only loss of face and intransigence - a view supported to some extent by China's response to the less than radical proposals of the new Governor - the alternative is merely to hope that China will allow Hong Kong citizens the freedoms they consistently deny their own people. This we believe to be an unrealistic hope.