The people's right to know
The July 1 mass demonstration was a true sign of the times, a clear indication of the discontent felt by people across all Hong Kong's social strata. It lodged a strong protest against the government's rush to pass the Article 23 legislation. As the Hong Kong Bar Association put it on Friday, the national security bill is widely perceived to be 'a real threat to the rights and freedoms of the residents of Hong Kong, in particular, to their freedom of political expression and of seeking information through the media'.
When Hong Kong's best lawyers warn us about the potential danger and half a million people march in protest, it would be politically irresponsible for the government not to pay attention and respond. Under tremendous pressure, the government has now postponed the controversial legislation. Hong Kong's rule of law and freedom of the press are too valuable for its people not to guard jealously.
The recent Sars crisis has clearly shown how important it is for Hong Kong to have a free press, to keep people informed, voice public opinions and play the role of watchdog over government policies and responses. In contrast, we have seen how the lack of transparency and a free press on the mainland allowed the killer virus to grow and spread.
Can we imagine what would happen if Hong Kong's news media were censored or self-censored for fear of infringing the law by reporting on medical information that was considered a national secret? Hong Kong's media proved itself worthy of our respect during the Sars crisis precisely because it was free to seek information and report its findings. That freedom is very important, but also very fragile. In modern societies, there is always a tension between the press and the state, and between people's right to know and the government's need to keep certain secrets on the grounds of national security. No responsible reporter or news organisation would deliberately divulge such secrets and jeopardise the security of society. But government officials are likely to use national security as an excuse to deny access to information to protect their own interests.
I remember hearing a talk in the 1980s given by Howard Simons, then the curator of the Nieman Foundation at Harvard University and a former managing editor of the Washington Post. At the Post he constantly got phone calls from the White House, the State Department, the Pentagon and other government offices, warning him not to release certain news reports for reasons of national security. He learned very few of these were real secrets that needed protection. For Mr Simons, freedom of the press was absolute and not negotiable. 'If it is really a national secret,' he told his callers, 'it is your job to keep it, and mine to find it out.' That was his simple principle for running a free and independent press.
Hong Kong is surely different from America. But I think the principle of freedom of the press should be the same everywhere.
Zhang Longxi is director of the Centre for Cross-Cultural Studies and chair professor of comparative literature and translation at City University of Hong Kong
