DATELINE: HONG KONG
Hong Kong's handover to China poses a host of questions for
journalists. Hong Kong seems to be operating as it did under the
British. Freedom of speech appears unaffected by the transition to
Chinese sovereignty. So far, China has stayed its hand. Yet many
question remain unanswered.
How can journalists remain free of
direct government control when confronted by national leaders who
have persecuted and jailed dissidents just across what is now a
notional border? In western countries, journalists are to a greater
degree insulated from government intervention by a diversified
private ownership. In that sense, Hong Kong journalists under the
British colonialists, had more freedom of choice than stable liberal
democracies such as Australia which pays lip service to freedom of
speech yet which allows an American citizen, Rupert Murdoch, to
control most of its major newspapers. In comparison, the former
colony of Hong Kong boasted of owners ranging from a still cloaked
Communist Party to freebooting and irreverent entrepreneurs. Yet it
remains to be seen whether China, the new sovereign power, will
exercise economic pressure against errant owners in the same way it
has done against foreign states who have offended cadres by, for
example, supporting Taiwan or opposing the occupation of Tibet. (It
should be noted that Hong Kong journalists can report but now longer
advocate Taiwanese or Tibetan independence.)
The policy of one country two systems should guarantee editorial
independence. But of course, those with access to western histories
would know that Beijing has given such assurances before.
How can Hong Kong journalists make a transition to post colonial
reporting? International news continues to be dominated by the
British Broadcasting Corporation and the western owned news agencies.
The reports of the former are frequently tinged with regret for loss
of empire, if not bewilderment about the obvious lack of gratitude by
the apparently inscrutable Orientals.
But what are the alternatives? The official voice of the new
rulers, the New China News Agency, may be couched in the style of
western news. Yet it remains tightly controlled by the highest levels
of the Communist Party and there is little pretence of fairness or
balance in reporting. Critics of mainland policy are at best
routinely ignored.
How can reporters deal with an increasingly opaque Hong Kong
government? They must now contend with an executive drawn from the
top ranks of Hong Kong business; a group not famous for proselytising
the public's right to know. They must find their way past a British
trained civil service with its colonial alternatives of "good news"
or secrecy. The Chief Executive, Tung Chi-hwa, who has been taking
lessons fromwestern media handlers, has adopted the practice of
accepting only one question from each of the reporters dogging his
footsteps. During his recent visit to Washington, where his desire to
influence the American public caused him to agree to open news
conferences, Mr Tung repeatedly declined to answer critical questions
from the Hong Kong press corps travelling with him. In a sense, he
was merely recognising the fact that Hong Kong journalists were of
little importance to his unelected regime whose electorate was secure
in the board rooms of big business and the Communist party.
Under such circumstances, there is little opportunity for
reporters to question policy. Conventional reporting techniques are
further stymied by the lack of any effective parliamentary opposition
who might be quoted. It's unlikely that even limited questions will
be asked when Mr Tung appears before the interim Legislative
Assembly; who were selected by Beijing largely from those who failed
to get elected in Hong Kong's most open election to date. Things can
be expected to become even more difficult after the Special
Adminstrative Region's first election, which contrary to assurances
delivered by the Government Information service, has been
painstakingly organised to defeat the democrats favoured by the
majority of Hong Kong voters.
Yet investigative journalism techniques which might probe deeper
and bypass the publicity flacks remain relatively unknown.
What sort of future is there for Hong Kong journalists? Journalism
is taught at three universities in Hong Kong. Teaching has become
markedly more careful in some schools with the appintment of
lecturers drawn from a Chinese mainland, more accustomed to
accommodating the authorities. Advanced investigative techniques will
not be taught in courses dominated by communications theorists with
minimal journalism experience. Ironically, such short sighted and
self serving behaviour is increasingly rejected by many mainland
journalists who recognise that western journalism techniques, however
flawed, are preferable to undiluted party propaganda.
In spite of all of this, Hong Kong journalism students remain as
idealistic as students you might find anywhere. Some of their parents
might think they are crazy to seek a degree which might get them a
poorly laid and politically dangerous job. Perhaps, it will be up to
them to find the answers.
Alan Knight