Message lost in attacks on Martin Lee
There was a sense of deja vu last week when veteran Democrat Martin Lee Chu-ming drew a barrage of criticism for remarks his detractors interpreted as an invitation to foreign forces to interfere in China's internal affairs.
Left-wing unionist Wong Kwok-hing branded him a traitor. Businessman Tsang Hin-chi, a local member of the National People's Congress Standing Committee, accused Mr Lee of forgetting his Chinese roots. Tam Yiu-chung, chairman of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, demanded an apology from Mr Lee.
It was a throwback to the orchestrated Martin Lee bashing routinely mounted by pro-Beijing media and politicians after the Tiananmen Square crackdown in 1989.
The controversy was sparked by an article Mr Lee wrote for The Wall Street Journal nearly two weeks ago in which he urged US President George W. Bush to 'use the next 10 months to press for significant improvement of basic human rights in my country, including press, assembly and religious freedoms'.
Beijing had promised the Olympics would help China 'establish a more just and harmonious ... democratic society' and 'integrate China into the world', Mr Lee wrote, but those promises had not been honoured.
'That is no reason to give up on the prospect for reform in China. But it is reason to step up the direct engagement on these pressing issues,' Mr Lee wrote.
Despite the fact the article is mild on the whole and that he does not favour a boycott of the Olympics as some suggested, his venture into the politics of the Games has proved to be a highly dangerous act.
Coming as it did on the heels of a warning by Communist Party chief Hu Jintao , in a speech to the party's congress, against 'external forces' interfering in the nation's internal affairs, Mr Lee's call for Mr Bush to press for human rights improvement has been seen as an affront to Beijing.
The official response, nevertheless, was mild. Asked to comment on Mr Lee's article, Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said any move to press Beijing would be 'unreasonable' and would not bear fruit.
Even pro-Beijing figures such as Mr Tsang would agree that the mainland's human rights situation is by no means satisfactory. He argued there had already been major improvement but that the process would take time.
If there is a fundamental difference in the views of Mr Tsang and Mr Lee, it is about the best way for people in Hong Kong and abroad to facilitate change in China.
By making an open appeal to Mr Bush, the Democrat took the view that direct engagement by the US and the international community with Beijing on human rights could expedite the process. Others - Mr Tsang and pro-Beijing parties such as the DAB, for example - find Mr Lee's approach counterproductive. Worse, they are convinced it will fuel mistrust. Quiet persuasion stands a better chance of bringing about progress, they argue.
The debate has become a source of friction and, at times, animosity since the student-led protests of 1989. This is despite the sea change in China since then. Following a period of icy relations with the west, China has striven to integrate with the international community as its economic and political might has grown.
Human rights may still be deemed an internal affair. That it is on the agenda of Beijing's diplomats speaks volume about the government's awareness of the importance of engaging western countries on the issue.
The success of the Beijing Olympics will not be measured solely by how many medals Chinese athletes win. It is about how China can show the world, through the Games, its commitment to building an open, liberal and pluralist society.
That message has been lost in the nationalistic outburst over Mr Lee's article.
