Then & now: diversion tactics
Despite modern misconceptions, censorship has been woven into the fabric of Hong Kong society since long before 1997, writes Jason Wordie
Every so often, public concerns about perceived erosions of Hong Kong’s “core values” and “basic freedoms” bubble to the surface.
Generally, these worries arise in the face of perceived, and, it must be said, hilariously unsophisticated, attempts at mainland interference in Hong Kong affairs.
Recent attempts to draw people away from the annual July 1 protest, which ranged from a concert headlined by K-pop acts to a classic-car rally (both oh-socoincidentally scheduled for that very afternoon), merely brought out the dissenters in greater force.
Staggering levels of historical illiteracy remain sadly commonplace among many public commentators in Hong Kong. In consequence, many (especially among the younger generation) assume that pre-1997 Hong Kong was a bastion of press freedom. A far greater degree of political dissent has always been tolerated in Hong Kong – whether during British or Chinese rule – than on the mainland, whether under imperial, nationalist or communist administrations.
Nevertheless, official press censorship in Hong Kong, with the (usually) clearly stated official aim of not provoking “the neighbour”, is a historical fact.
Anti-sedition laws have long existed in Hong Kong. The arrest of journalists and banning of publications was not routine under colonialism, but laws existed that allowed both, and from time to time were used. Article 23 activists tend to neatly ignore this fact.
Editorial decisions based (in part) on a proprietor’s broader business strategies – “self-censorship”, if you like – remain commonplace here, as everywhere else. But this specific factor is a very different story to overt government control over the press.