ARTICLE 19 and The Hong Kong Journalists Association
1.4 UK: THE POLICY OF "CONVERGENCE"
Governor Patten's reform proposals, many agree, may well prove to be too little and too late. Since the signing of the Sino-British Joint Declaration, Britain's policies on the transition have contributed equally to this lamentable state of affairs. By agreeing as early as 1985 to the slippery road of "convergence", by which all constitutional developments in the territory would converge with the Basic Law, it has presided over China's seemingly irreversible erosion of the "high degree of autonomy" promised under the Joint Declaration. It has largely abrogated its responsibilities to Hong Kong under the agreement.
Even in important areas such as the Hong Kong Bill of Rights, which the British administration announced as a confidence-building measure after the 1989 suppression, it has tried to second-guess China by weakening the legislation in various ways to make it compatible with the Basic Law. Yet despite this, China has still said it may amend or repeal the Ordinance after 1997.
The Hong Kong government's degree of commitment to human rights remains questionable in spite of the Bill's passage. Of particular concern has been the failure to undertake a comprehensive review of existing legislation to ensure the consistency of laws with the Bill of Rights. Provisions of laws on broadcasting, for example, permit the prior censorship on political grounds of television and radio programmes. In August 1992, Governor Chris Patten did agree to a request by the Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA) to undertake a review in the Executive Council of laws which may be inconsistent with the right to freedom of expression, and this is presently under way. It is too early to say whether the review will mark any significant change in the government's attitude towards controversial laws. If these powers remain unamended or unrepealed, and continue into the SAR in their present form, they represent an open invitation to abuse.
It is also plausible they may be used during the remaining years of British rule. There have in fact been several occasions since 1989 that the executive authorities have used their power in ways which have contravened the right to freedom of expression. Cited in this report, these actions were largely taken to appease China, as a confidential letter from the government's political advisor to Xinhua News Agency revealed. There is also strong circumstantial evidence to suggest that the government, through its executive, has been involved in other actions designed to limit the impact of activities provocative to China's authorities: the denial of entry visas to exiled Chinese dissidents wishing to attend a local conference is one such example.
While much of this censorship has been a result of anticipating China's sensitivities after 1989 (in the name of a smooth transition), there is also an element of historical continuity at work. A key thread of Britain's censorship policies in Hong Kong has been the perceived need to "maintain good relations with neighbouring countries" - namely China. For more than 20 years, for example, before the practice was exposed in 1987, the government had been surreptitiously censoring films in order not to offend Beijing.
4
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.