Freedom of speech must be defended
A threat to one person's freedom is a threat to a society's freedom. Hong Kong regards its freedoms as precious, so we should all take seriously the threat to Allen Lee Peng-fei's freedom to express himself.
Mr Lee yesterday painted a picture of the circumstances that led him to quit his job as a radio show host. The picture remains fuzzy in its details but it is clear enough to deepen concerns about freedom of expression.
The veteran politician gave a long account to lawmakers when he appeared before the Legco home affairs panel. He described a series of incidents in which mainland officials applied various forms of pressure in a bid to persuade him to tone down his criticism of the Hong Kong and central governments.
His statement goes a long way towards confirming many people's fears. It suggests there may be a campaign under way to suppress dissent ahead of the Legislative Council elections - and that these activities might have some kind of official backing. Mr Lee's statement falls short of proof of the existence of a campaign - for one thing, he did not name names - but the incidents he described together imply that there may be one. If this were true, it would amount to an attack on our values and way of life - in breach of the 'one country, two systems' concept.
We can take Mr Lee's account at face value. He is an experienced politician with a reputation for honesty and sticking to his principles. It must have taken courage for him to speak out.
But the statement does leave many questions unanswered. We do not know how widespread the problem might be. And it is still hard to work out precisely what is going on. Some of the approaches do not seem to go beyond the sort of pressure a person in Mr Lee's position would expect to encounter - and resist.
The telephone call referring to his wife and daughter, however, falls into a different category. It was sinister and frightening, not unlike intimidation tactics commonly used by triads. This is a matter the police should be taking seriously.
Then there is the question of whether the central government is involved. Mr Lee says middle-ranking cadres are responsible. Beijing is clearly worried about the outcome of September's elections. It might well be that certain officials are second-guessing the leadership's wishes - and taking matters into their own hands.
Whatever the true position, there can be no denying that Mr Lee's account has added to the climate of anxiety in Hong Kong. It follows the resignation of two other controversial broadcasters in recent weeks. This unhealthy situation must not be allowed to continue. Tung Chee-hwa has remained silent throughout the whole affair. This does not instil confidence in the determination of the government to rigorously defend freedom of expression. A strong statement supporting Hong Kong's values and freedoms is required.
The central government has also said little so far, beyond pointing out that free speech is protected by law. A robust defence of Hong Kong's separate system would be very helpful. In particular, a clear signal from Beijing that it disapproves of any intimidation tactics could be sufficient to bring them to an end.
Mr Lee has suggested that the central government takes the attitude that 'if you are not my friend, you are my enemy'. Such an approach, however, would be contrary to the message conveyed by Liu Yandong, director of the Communist Party's United Front Work Department, during her visit here. Ms Liu has spoken of the need to improve communication and understanding. She has highlighted the importance of dialogue and of being more rational and accommodating.
This is the best way to build mutual trust and confidence between Hong Kong and the mainland. But it has to work both ways. Beijing should appreciate and accommodate the values Hong Kong people cherish. They lie at the heart of 'one country, two systems'. And they include the freedom to express opinions of all kinds.
