DATELINE: HONG KONG

Tsang Tak-sing is Editor in Chief of the pro-Beijing newspaper, Ta Kung Pao. Mr. Tsang who is a member of the mainland's People's Congress, has been active member of the Communist Party since he was a teenager. He was invited to speak at the Commonwealth Journalist's association conference to provide the Chinese government position.

2. This the first as well as the last time the Triennial Conference of the Commonwealth Journalists Association is held in Hong Kong. An opening speaker on Monday found this a rather sad occasion. I for my part attend this occasion with jubilation, not the least because of the opportunity to meet with you, distinguished members who have come from Third world countries, as well as from the West. The very fact that we are gathered here today, must speak a lot for the British legacy. This should not be denied. Yet for all the strong points of British culture and influence, I think you will agree with me that no self respecting member of Third world countries will ever want to bring back the former British colonial masters, to rule over you again in whatever form. And for all the problems and hardship that your countrymen may have faced after shaking off the British colonial yoke, I don't think that any of you had not been glad to see the end of British domination, and definitely would not have hoped the former British masters to stay a day longer. I look forward to July 1 this year, when we'll have ended colonial rule, and be our own masters. Because Hong Kong has always been part of China since ancient history, we do not follow the normal de-colonisation process here. After June 30, we'll be re-incorporated with China, and thus we will cease to be a member of the British Commonwealth, but that is not to say that Hong Kong will not maintain good relations with all the countries to which you belong, and we will look forward to more fruitful exchanges and productive co-operation in the future.

3. No matter what rhetoric you might have heard about democracy and press freedom in Hong Kong, there is no denying the fact that this here is a colonial administration set up by the British through forceful occupation after the Opium war a hundred and fifty years ago. For those of you who may not be familiar with history in this part of the world, the opium war was caused by the British selling opium to China in exchange for silk, tea and silver dollars. When the Chinese government tried to put a stop to this trade, the British despatched their gun boats. In my student days, history was taught in English and the cause of what they called the first Anglo-Chinese war, was said to be between the British modern concept of free trade and the outdated closed door policy of Mandarin China. So we should all thank British agents of progress. The Opium War was among one of the early steps by Great Britain to build the empire on which the sun never set, and this also eventually led to the occupation of your countries, which they regarded as "the white man's burden". But now the Royal Yacht "Britannica" has set sail on her last voyage, and as the British Press says, come June 30 this year, the sun has finally set on the British Empire.

4. We have had only some semblance of democracy and freedom of the press since the signing in 1984 of the Sino-British Joint Declaration regarding Hong Kong. The Joint Declaration spells out clearly that Britain is to return Hong Kong to China. Only after they saw the writing on the wall, did the British colonial administration begin to implement changes. We call the period between 1984 and 1997 the transition period. . .If you have just flown in here for the first time and have just taken a still photograph of the present situation, without historical background, the picture still lacks perspective, But if you have grown up here, you cannot escape the fact that this here is very much a colonial administration, not too much different from your former colonial days. The Control of Publications Ordinance was only repealed in 1986, two years after the signing of the Joint Declaration. There had been other draconian laws that had stifled freedom of the press. The government has closed down newspapers, and thrown publishers, editors and reporters into jail. . .All senior officials of the administration, the police and all the leading judges of the judiciary, all used to be British: they only started to "localise" in recent years. British colonial officials used to say, " We do not have democracy here in Hong Kong, but we have freedom of the press here." Now this is a very interesting theory, that you can have freedom of the press under an authoritarian regime. As you can see the British are still master inventors of social theories, but we are still waiting for the proof. Your earlier speaker [Patten] at the opening ceremony even told you that from the earliest days of the colony there was a "lively" press. the said speaker certainly has a way with words. But you may only need to look back into your own history to understand how little democracy and freedom of the press one could have in reality under colonial rule. You can find earlier Chinese newspapers in Hong Kong with little blank spaces where the censors had deleted the contents, or worse they won't allow the appearance of blank spaces, the sentences had to be arbitrarily joined together making readers at a loss to understand. For over a hundred years we never had democracy, we never had freedom of the press.

5. It is Article 27 of the Basic Law, promulgated by the National People's Congress of China , which stipulates that "Hong Kong residents shall have freedom of speech, of the press and of publication". This the first time ever that we have had these freedoms stipulated on the law books of Hong Kong. It was only after the promulgation of the Basic Law by China in 1990, that the British administration here passed this so-called "Bill of rights" ordinance in 1991, but again in that effort they tried to sabotage the protection of civil rights protected in the Basic Law.

6. . . .The British governor assumed the role of judge here not too long ago, in saying whether one piece or another conformed with the Basic Law. Recently he has also assumed the role of spokesman for the Chinese government. One Monday, he declared that Mr. Xi Yang was released on parole by the Chinese authorities out of consideration for demonstrations in front of the office of the Xinhua news agency in Hong Kong. (Xi Yang was a reporter from mainland China employed by a local newspaper here). [Xi Yang, who had formerly lived in mainland China, had been sent by his Hong Kong newspaper to Beijing to report on financial matters. When speaking to source while preparing a story on interest rate changes, he was arrested and later tried in secret. He had been accused of stealing state secrets. His twelve year sentence was commuted for good behaviour after about two years in jail.]

I don't know how Mr. Patten can be privy to the thinking of the Chinese judiciary. But here in Hong Kong, we have had countless demonstrations in front of government house, and I do not think that they have affected Mr. Patten's decisions that much. I remember the occasion when a large number of air stewardesses staged a "sleep in" for days outside government house, to air their complaint, but with very little consequence. [The Cathay Pacific stewardess' strike failed after communist unions decided not to support them. Many of the striking women were subsequently blacklisted and forced to leave the industry.]

I understand the feelings of the demonstrators who demanded Mr. Xi Yang's release. But I also notice that the Chinese government, up to this date has insisted that his arrest, trial and sentence had all been done according to law, and that he was allowed parole for his repentance and good behaviour. . .

7. Come July 1 this year, Hong Kong shall be returned to China and set up as a Special Administrative Region under the concept of "one country, two systems". Hong Kong will continue to develop as an international centre of commerce, finance, shipping, transport, communication, as well as an international centre of information. This will imply a free flow of information. We stress "one country, two systems". We realise that the operation of the press is different in the two systems. Properly managed, this can only be of benefit to China.

8. So come July 1, we will se a change from the "freedom of the press" under Patten, to the freedom of the press under Mr. CH Tung, who is out Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative region. Is that the same freedom of the press? Will there be differences? I will contend that there will be differences. Let me cite two examples. When Mr. Patten arrived in Hong Kong to be governor, the press here covered it , writing about how he dressed in his suit, how cute his daughters looked in their hats, how Mrs. Patten was impressed with so many rooms in Government house, and how that "Whiskey" and "Soda" were the names of their two dogs. None of the cowered press even raised the questions: What right does Mr. Patten have to govern over Hong Kong? How much did he know about Hong Kong and how much did the people of Hong Kong know about him? (The answers to both questions is practically nil). This was the "free" and "lively" press after 150 years of colonial rule. When Mr. CH Tung ran for Chief Executive of SAR last year, the local press queries his qualifications, his background, and his business associates, asked questions about the electoral process, whether it was democratic enough, and conducted public opinion polls to gauge his popularity as compared to other candidates. Would you say that this is a manifestation of freedom of the press? Second example, we have a suspected case of cover-up recently in Hong Kong. Last summer our immigration chief suddenly retired. The government initially said he retired for "personal reasons". Now we know the fact the government fired him. But in the later part of 1996 there appeared quite a number of negative reports in the British press about this former Immigration chief, a Chinese named Leong. The British press quoted government sources saying that Leong was a spy recruited by the Chinese government, that he passed along confidential information, that he handed . at a favour, the lucrative contract for printing of the SAR passport to a Chinese firm. None of these was true, and had been established as entirely groundless, though the British press never printed any retraction. the local press did not report these stories, because it would have been libelous. But the British press did, and they quoted official government sources. You can see that there sure is press freedom, but WHOSE press freedom?

9. So you may come away from this conference having two views about press freedom in Hong Kong. Mr. Patten will want to have you believe we have had press freedom since early colonial days, and this press freedom is now threatened by Communist China. Just as in the past when the Opium War was presented as a conflict between progress and China's backward closed door policy. so now the return of Hong Kong to China is couched in Cold War ideological terms: that of a "free" society being threatened by Communist authoritarianism. One so called "Democrat" highly regarded by Mr. Patten had likened the return of Hong Kong to China as " the handover of six million Jews to the Nazis". This is undoubtedly one point of view. But there is another view, the Chinese view, and I believe the view of all people who have lived and suffered under colonialism. And that view is that real freedom of the press can only be acheived with the ending of colonialism. Of course even after we get rid of colonialism we still have to work for our freedom, or even struggle for it, because I believe that freedom can only be won, and is never bestowed. But the ending of colonialism gives us hope for freedom of the press, as the transition period has already given us indications. With these two different views, there are different attitudes . Those who take the first view come to this conference and addresses with sadness. Those who take the second view welcome July 1 with jubilation. Do you share our joy or his sadness? Which side are you on? Thank you again.

Alan Knight