The city's media have not been told to toe Beijing's line when they cover crises on the mainland, says Rita Fan Hsu Lai-tai. Fan, a member of the National People's Congress Standing Committee, sought to play down comments by a central government representative in Hong Kong. Hao Tiechuan, head of the liaison office's publicity department, caused uproar on Thursday when he said that during social unrest the top priority of the media was to help the government restore order. Fan, former president of the Legislative Council, blamed a cultural misunderstanding. She said that when Hao talked about the media co-operating with the government what he meant 'was that people should not create more trouble and chaos'. 'The mainland authorities recognise journalists' duty to report the truth and there needs to be mutual understanding on each others' roles.' Hao's comments, in a speech at a Hong Kong Journalists Association lunch, angered academics and rights groups, who said the first duty of journalists was to tell the truth. They said Hao's views reflected the mainland's practice to control press freedom, which was evident during recent incidents. Hundreds of Hong Kong journalists demonstrated outside the liaison office last year after several of their colleagues were roughed up by mainland police when they were covering riots in Xinjiang . Early this month, several Hong Kong journalists were arrested in Guangzhou while covering a protest by people defending Cantonese. Fan said mainland officials and Hong Kong journalists should improve understanding. She said the central government had become more relaxed towards the media in recent years. 'We are not talking about journalists having to follow orders of the government, right? The media has overreacted.' Meanwhile, reacting to intensifying speculation that the controversial national security bill would soon be reintroduced under Article 23 of the Basic Law, Fan said the initiative rested with the Hong Kong government. Hao said he was unaware of such moves. Fan said Hao's comments on the media - which could have their rights curbed if the bill, shelved in 2003, was enacted - did not indicate a legislative exercise was imminent.
