bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

helpersCheckIsPostiesArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

hooksAmpRedirectArticle

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

moreOnThisArticles

urlAlias

commentCount

authorLocations

authors

corrections

sponsorType

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

socialHeadline

headline

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

publishedDate

additionalInfoBoxes

quizIds

images

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

createdDate

sponsor

paywallTypes

pdfFiles

seriesReverseOrder

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

readingTime

customTimezone

liveContents

Lu Ping

Last Friday, senior Chinese official Lu Ping told CNN in an interview that the Hong Kong press would not be allowed to advocate 'two Chinas' after 1997.

  Advocacy for independence for Hong Kong or Taiwan, he said, was not within the high degree of autonomy promised the future Special Administrative Region (SAR).

  The statement by Mr Lu, director of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, showed just how difficult it will be to reconcile Hong Kong's notion of free speech with China's after 1997.

  Not that many people here have called for the independence of Hong Kong or Taiwan.

  But the fact is those who hold such views, however unpopular, have been allowed to express them under British rule.

  Some would say the colonial administration has not clamped down on such views only because they are not aimed at the British Government, whose reaction might have been different were it otherwise.

  Nevertheless, it has been argued that under the concept of 'one country, two systems', those who hold such pro-independence views should be able to continue to speak up, although putting such views into action should be banned.

  Indeed, Mr Lu alluded to a distinction between speech and action when he said people would be free to say anything they liked, but would have to be careful if it led to action.

  'If they really want to overthrow . . . the central government, that's another thing,' he said.

  While admitting that he did not know American law very well, he even ventured to say that he did not think the press in the United States was allowed to advocate the separation of, say, Hawaii. In fact, Americans do have the right to advocate such a separation. So do people in Canada, where the province of Quebec held a referendum last year to decide if it should secede from the Canadian union.

  That Quebecois have been allowed to decide their future has been viewed as a triumph of the democratic principle of self-determination.

  When the issue of Hong Kong's future after 1997 came up in the late 1970s, there was a body of opinion which said Hong Kong people should be allowed to vote on their own future, including the option of independence.

  This view was strongly rejected by China and not taken up by Britain. Nor did it gain popular support.

  From China's point of view, Hong Kong's future cannot be considered only from the perspective of self-determination because it was originally a Chinese territory until 1842.

  In fact, international lawyers have long pointed out that it is not easy to reconcile the principles of self-determination and territorial integrity.

  In Hong Kong's case, Hong Kong Island and later Kowloon were ceded by China to Britain under duress under two treaties signed in the 19th century.

  At that time, the people of Hong Kong clearly opposed the cessions, as did New Territories villagers who took up arms to resist British occupation under the 99-year lease signed in 1898.

  The principle of self-determination was unheard of in those days. But had the people of Hong Kong and the New Territories been given a say, they would certainly have voted to remain a part of China.

  A century later, after years of colonial rule in Hong Kong and turmoil on the mainland, Hong Kong people are understandably anxious about a reunion with a China they know little about, although they still possess a strong sense of Chineseness.

  Would it be right to apply the principle of self-determination here to ask a people forcibly separated from their natural mother and brought up by a foster mother to decide if they should return to the embrace of the former?   The analogy may not be totally appropriate, but should illustrate the difficulty of making self-determination a general legal right.

  The thought of independence for Hong Kong or Taiwan would never have featured in people's minds had the former not been colonised by Britain and the latter by Japan.

  Beijing is adamant that any independence claims for any part of China cannot be entertained and any such view cannot be publicly disseminated because there is a possibility that separatist action will follow.

  In saying that the press in Hong Kong could not advocate 'two Chinas' after 1997, Mr Lu was sticking to the official line. He might simply have no choice.

  But does it mean no one can write an essay expounding a pro-independence view and the press would be penalised for publishing it? A clarification from Mr Lu would be welcomed.

  Defining what is speech, what is action and at what point speech becomes action is not easy.

  For example, the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of the Patriotic Democratic Movement in China, called for the downfall of the 'Deng [Xiaoping], Li [Peng], Yang [Shangkun] clique' after the crackdown of the student movement in Beijing on June 4, 1989.

  While the call can be seen as speech under existing Hong Kong law, it is also believed that individual members of the alliance are behind the so-called Yellow Bird action to help wanted dissidents in China flee the country.

  It remains to be seen if the alliance will be banned under laws to be drafted by the SAR government.

  The people of Hong Kong understand that China adopts a very strict view on what is permitted speech, but hope that, in the spirit of 'one country, two systems', speech and action will be defined according to the territory's way.

  After all, under the Basic Law, the SAR will be allowed to draft its own laws prohibiting any act of treason, secession, sedition and subversion against the central government after 1997.

  Hong Kong people know their future lies with integration with China. But the important issue at stake is defending the right to free speech of those who disagree with the majority.



A word of caution