Many community leaders seemed reluctant to commit themselves to an explicit stance, lest this upset either Beijing or the local public. Convenor of the Executive Council Leung Chun-ying, for instance, reminded the public that both national unity and freedom of the press were important. He added that a proper balance should be struck between the two. Yet he did not elaborate on how he personally would strike such a balance.

A Hong Kong deputy to the National People's Congress, Maria Tam Wai-chu, was even more ambiguous. She argued that Mr Wang had not contravened the Basic Law - but nor had he acted in line with it.

Surprisingly, Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa turned out to be the most forceful defender for Hong Kong. He affirmed that the SAR Government was determined to uphold press freedom, assuring the media that it could continue to act in accordance with the law. His statement helped restore some public confidence in the administration's determination to safeguard civil liberties.

He sounded even firmer than the outspoken Chief Secretary for Administration Anson Chan Fang On-sang, who made an initial official response while Mr Tung was on a trip to North America.

Pro-Beijing elements have come to the aid of Mr Wang in droves. Interestingly, Radio Television Hong Kong has assumed the role of official medium in the controversy. Ample airtime was given to pro-Beijing figures by both its television and radio arms, while dissenting views seemed to be given less prominence.

The pro-Beijing camp mounted a proactive propaganda campaign. Many of its core members appeared on RTHK programmes to defend the official mainland position and their remarks in favour of Mr Wang were then amplified in other media.

The pro-Wang voices have definitely exceeded the critics'. Apart from the Democrats and journalists, only a few have denounced Mr Wang in public. Their voices are hardly loud and clear. Few took part in the signature campaign in Causeway Bay and even fewer demonstrated outside the headquarters of the Liaison Office. Such protest actions were far from drastic. Indeed, had it not been for the issue being kept alive by the May 20 inauguration of Taiwan president-elect Chen Shui-bian, and his deputy's continued provocative statements, the storm might have died down rather quickly.

Three years after the 1997 handover, many former pessimists are happy to see Beijing has kept its promise to leave Hong Kong alone. The Basic Law has lived up to public expectations as a legal guarantee in preserving civil rights. And what Mr Wang said is, in some senses, irrelevant, as long as the media can continue to operate as usual. In fact, the same mini-constitution also safeguards Mr Wang's freedom to express his own beliefs, whether or not they are reasonable.

Yet the media has reacted as if Mr Wang's words presented a clear and present threat to their survival. But, beneath this mask of hypocrisy, the reality is that the local media has long been self-censoring. The situation is likely to worsen, as more of them will probably heed Mr Wang's advice discreetly. Even though they would never admit it in public, some media practitioners may become even more restrained in covering sensitive topics concerning the mainland.

As long as the spirit of the Basic Law is honoured, the media should continue to enjoy the right to interview people like Ms Lu. The threat to press freedom is more likely to come from within the profession than from outside. Some reporters, editors and media proprietors are fierce in word but faint at heart.

Despite their high-sounding slogans, many are not prepared to stand their ground. Ms Lu has in fact proved to be a newsworthy figure. Beijing's uncompromising attitude will only make her more so. Yet, no other media has attempted to approach her in Taiwan for an immediate follow-up story, after Cable aired its contentious interview with her - even though any subsequent interviews would have attracted an even larger audience.

Since not many people watched the original interview, other news organisations, including RTHK and the print media, could have spread this newsworthy story to a wider audience. The local audience is also keen to know how the Taiwanese reacted to the Wang episode. Nonetheless, none of the media has bothered to do so. In order not to offend Beijing, media practitioners seem ready to sacrifice higher ratings and bigger circulation.

So we should be grateful to Mr Wang. It does not matter much whether he acted on his own or under instructions from the central Government. Either way, the public debate he started is a timely reminder that the enemy could well be within.