MACAU TAKES the LEAD Dangers for Freedom of Expression in Hong Kong
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
hkjacv09.qxp 6/30/2009 10:51 AM Page 1 MACAU TAKES THE LEAD Dangers for freedom of expression in Hong Kong 2009 ANNUAL REPORT REPORT OF THE HONG KONG JOURNALISTS ASSOCIATION JULY 2009 Macau takes the lead: Dangers for freedom of expression in Hong Kong 1 Contents Introduction and recommendations ................................................................................................................2 Section 1 MACAU SETS THE TONE........................................................................5 Macau takes first steps ............................................................................5 Criticism mounts in Hong Kong ............................................................6 Macau presses on with enactment of law ..............................................7 Hong Kong critics kept at bay ................................................................8 Hong Kong’s own blacklist? ...................................................................9 Record numbers at vigil........................................................................10 Mainland authorities remove pages from Hong Kong newspapers.....11 Section 2 A CHANGE OF FOCUS .........................................................................12 Court overturns telecommunications ruling .......................................12 RTHK review dies a slow death.............................................................13 A new man at the helm ........................................................................14 New radio station faces obstacles .........................................................15 Government relaxes cross-media rules for mobile TV .........................15 Section 3 GOVERNMENT UNDERTAKES OBSCENITY REVIEW..........................17 Government lists obscenity options ....................................................17 Court slams obscenity tribunal ............................................................18 Probe prompts freedom of information debate ...................................19 Government claims victory in academic freedom case .......................20 Government takes no action over assault cases...................................21 Section 4 BEIJING’S HEAVY HAND......................................................................22 New reporting rules change little .........................................................22 Olympics highlight rights violations ...................................................23 Chinese Foreign Ministry tries to gag Tibet speaker ............................24 Section 5 MEDIA WORKERS FACE DIFFICULT TIMES ........................................26 Broadcasters cut staff aggessively .........................................................26 Print media resorts to pay cuts .............................................................27 ATV undergoes another ownership change .........................................27 Publisher quits over cross-media concerns ..........................................29 Contributors: Cliff Bale and Mak Yin-ting © Hong Kong Journalists Association 2 Hong Kong Journalists Association Introduction and recommendations The Hong Kong Jounalists Association’s (HKJA) annual report on freedom of expression normally focusses on events in Hong Kong. This report, for the period from July 2008 to June 2009, focusses instead on an event in neighbouring Macau—the passage of national security legislation. This is important for Hong Kong for a number of reasons. Hong Kong tried to introduce legislation banning treason, sedition, subversion, secession and the theft of state secrets in 2003. But strong opposition, culminating in a march by half a million people, forced the government to shelve the plan. They feared the erosion of their freedoms, including freedom of expression, if the draft became law. The protests in turn led to the resignation—in 2005—of then chief executive, Tung Chee-hwa. His successor, Donald Tsang, ruled out the immediate re-introduction of draft legislation. But at the same time, he did not completely rule out any move before he steps down in June 2012. The Macau move is also significant because it sets a precedent for Hong Kong. The offences in Macau’s legislation are in some cases extremely broad in nature—although that in part is a reflection of the fact that Macau uses a continental legal system—which is more akin to that in mainland China. By contrast, Hong Kong uses a common law system, which means that offences have to be worded in far more precise language. Chinese officials—who now wield greater influence in Hong Kong affairs than they did while Tung Chee-hwa was chief executive—are also thought to be unhappy that national security legislation has not yet been inmplemented in Hong Kong. They—or those close to them—argue that Hong Kong has yet to fully implement the Basic Law, which provides in article 23 for the enactment of national security legislation. So, in the not too distant future, the reasoning goes, the Hong Kong government is bound to bring forward national security legislation. Macau took four months to enact the law—from the day it published a consultation document on the issue. But Macau is very different from Hong Kong. It does not have a tradition of opposition to government policy. In Hong Kong, half a million people protested against national security legislation; in Macau about 100 people protested in favour as the legislature voted—overwhelmingly—to endorse the law. Observers commented after the passage of the Macau law that the Hong Kong government would be under tremendous pressure to enact national security legislation—possibly shortly before Mr Tsang steps down and when he has the least political capital to lose. The observers also point to Beijing’s growing clout in Hong Kong. They ask whether mainland leaders have tasked Mr Tsang with enacting such legislation in return for support for him becoming chief executive for two years in 2005 and then in 2007 for a full five-year term. We do not know—and we shall doubtless not be told. Mr Tsang himself has made it clear that he wishes now to focus on tackling the economic and financial crisis. He told legislators in January 2009 that consultation on political reform would be put off from the first half of this year to late 2009. He has also indicated that other controversial issues will be put off, for the sake of tackling the crisis. Some of these issues are urgent. They include reform of the Telecommunications Ordinance, to allow a greater diversity of radio outlets; a review of public service broadcasting, and in particular the future of Radio Television Hong Kong (RTHK); Macau takes the lead: Dangers for freedom of expression in Hong Kong 3 and the introduction of freedom of information legislation, to allow the public greater access to government information and documents. One of the few freedom of expression areas in which the government is moving forward is on changes to the way it regulates indecency and obscenity. However, the fear among free expression advocates is that the government might adopt a more stringent approach in an area that now causes little concern in many democratic societies. The irony is that although media freedoms remain largely intact in Hong Kong, the scope for expressing dissenting views—in particular on subjects that are sensitive to Beijing—is narrowing. It is significant that the US-based group, Freedom House, has shifted Hong Kong in its global press freedom rankings from “free” to “partly free”, as a result of threats to media independence and diversity. At the same time, Hong Kong has slipped from 67th position in 2008 to 75th one year later. In response to this announcement, Hong Kong’s Democratic Party carried out a survey of 529 people to find out their views on media freedoms. The party reported that almost 56 percent of respondents believed media freedoms had deteriorated in the previous two years—and 54 percent thought media organisations had exercised self-censorship. These findings are broadly in line with the results of surveys conducted by the HKJA among Hong Kong journalists. However, not all was bad news on the freedom of expression front. On the night of June 4th 2009, a record 150,000 people turned up to mark the 20th anniversary of the suppression of the pro-democracy movement in Beijing. This was far higher than the organisers expected—and reflected the strength of feeling among Hong Kong about this most sensitive event in recent Chinese history. The turnout was probably boosted in part by insensitive comments by the chief executive, Donald Tsang, who equated his own pro-Beijing views on the events in 1989 with those of the public at large. The chief executive noted in response to the huge turnout that it respected people’s views. But otherwise, he had no comment. This is not a ringing endorsement of freedom of expression. The HKJA would therefore call on the government to approach media issues with extreme caution, to ensure that Hong Kong’s existing freedoms—which at times are fragile—are maintained. In particular, we would urge the following: 1) Resist pressure to enact national security legislation, following the passage of a similar law in Macau. Hong Kong should enact such legislation only if there are compelling and immediate national security reasons for doing so. If enacted, the law must contain safeguards which are robust enough to protect freedom of expression and press freedom, which are lacking in the Macau legislation. It must in particular incorporate the Johannesburg