|
State Councillor Tang Jiaxuan Tuesday refuted the claim that the departures of three Hong Kong radio hosts from their posts were caused by pressure from the central government.
"This is definitely not the truth," he told ATV last night.
Tang is so far the highest ranking central government official to speak on the recent incidents concerning the radio talkshow hosts.
The resignations of Albert Cheng, Raymond Wong and Allen Lee within a month in succession have prompted some people in Hong Kong to suspect that Beijing is trying to affect Hong Kong's freedom of press and speech in the lead-up to the Legislative Council election in September.
Responding to concerns in Hong Kong that freedom of speech would be narrowed after the recent incidents, Tang said: "Some have suggested that it was under Beijing's instruction that they (the radio hosts) had left their posts; this is definitely not the truth."
Without naming names, he said one of the three radio hosts left Hong Kong because of heavy debts he owed.
"It was out of his own intention to flee to Canada because he could no longer stay in Hong Kong. How could he say it was under Beijing's pressure?" Tang asked.
He noted that the interpretation by the country's top legislature on Basic Law annexes concerning electoral changes aimed to safeguard Hong Kong's prosperity, stability and development.
"Stability is of utmost importance. Without it, how could Hong Kong have real democracy and freedom?" he said.
Lee's 'threat' story damages mutual trust
Testifying at a panel meeting in the Legislative Council, Allen Lee "revealed" that his resignation from his radio host job was due to a threat from a "mysterious person".
This revelation sent a shockwave through the city. Some people thought they had hit a bonanza -- discovering the evidence of the central government's attempt to stifle Hong Kong's freedom of expression. They proceeded to blow up the story, claiming that the extent of the damage for the central government incurred by the episode was absolutely "shocking".
However, in an unexpected twist of events, the "mysterious person" suddenly emerged and came forward to tell the other side of the story, placing Lee and those who have fanned the fire in an embarrassing position.
The soap bubble they have blown up burst all of a sudden, exposing all those hiding inside. The embarrassment is beyond imagination.
No matter what the final outcome of the episode will be, the damage has been done.
Bearing the brunt of the damage is Hong Kong society. With the local community already highly politicized, pervaded with suspicions and mud-slinging, Lee's testimony has added fuel to the fire, exacerbating Hong Kong people's suspicion and anxiety.
Due to exaggeration by certain politicians and part of the media, the atmosphere in the SAR seems terrifying. If Lee cannot give a reasonable explanation to the public, the case will remain unsettled and the dark cloud overhanging Hong Kong society will stay for an indefinite period of time.
Furthermore, the episode has taken a toll on the mutual trust between the central government and Hong Kong people. During his testimony, Lee was intentionally vague over crucial evidence, but what he was actually driving at was crystal clear.
He fervently confronted Beijing, accusing it of suppressing freedom of speech in the territory. This has undoubtedly provided the pretext, though unfounded, for attacking the central government.
In recent days, some commentators have hinted at a conspiracy, and some legislators even said that the episode sounded like espionage. All these accusations have served to undermine Hongkongers' respect for and confidence in the central authorities.
Suffering the greatest damage, however, is nothing other than Lee's credibility. Now that the truth has come out, the credibility of Lee as a public figure is seriously under doubt.
Right from the outset, he has posed as a victim, a public-spirited person who dared to come forward to protect freedom of expression. Yet, the immense pressure he "shouldered" turned out to be a common telephone call from an old friend.
How can that be called "pressure"? Nobody -- from the National People's Congress to the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the SAR -- has made any attempt whatsoever to hamper the freedom of speech in the SAR. Why does he have to protect it?
On the day when he quit his radio host job, Lee explained that he did not want to offend his friends and that there was no more fun in the work. But at the panel meeting, he changed the reason to the pressure from a "Mr Chen". Now that "Mr Chen" has challenged him on the airwaves, he is trying desperately to save face by pretending that he knows nothing about it. Playing fast and loose and lacking tact, Lee is discrediting himself among the local populace.
Some analysts are saying that Cheng Shousan's clarification has proven that Lee did not lie about the phone call, and that the atmosphere in society is not that terrifying.
Although such a saying cannot be said to be wrong, the damage has already been done. It is true that Lee did not lie, but why did he vent his anger at the central government?
Now the person who started the incident is blushing with shame; those who exaggerated the affair are in disgrace; the central government has been wronged; and Hong Kong people feel embarrassed. One wonders whether these outcomes are what Lee expected.
Fan: Phone calls to old friends a small matter
Legislative Council President Rita Fan revealed that she had twice met Cheng Shousan, whose late-night phone call to Allen Lee prompted the radio host to quit, while he was in Hong Kong recently.
She said it was a very small matter for a person to contact his old friends while he happened to be in Hong Kong.
Allen Lee testified at the Legislative Council last week a retired mainland official "surnamed Chen" phoned him on the night of May 18 to influence the way he ran the talkshow programme. It was confirmed later that "Chen" was actually Cheng, the ex-deputy director of the Office of Hong Kong and Macao Affairs of the Foreign Ministry.
Fan recalled that Cheng also phoned her in the morning of May 16.
She invited him to have lunch that day with other members of the Preparatory Committee of the Hong Kong SAR.
Two days later, she met Cheng again (he was bringing along with him a few people from the Shandong Social Sciences Academy).
Many people from the mainland had asked to see her to learn more about Hong Kong; but she had declined those she did not know well, Fan said.
"They asked more or less the same questions such as the way local people see the Hong Kong SAR government and are the people unhappy because of the economic downturn? Politically, they also liked to know Hong Kong people's views on constitutional development in future."
Asked if Lee had overreacted, Fan said different people could feel differently.
Another Preparatory Committee member Maria Tam, a deputy to the National People's Congress (NPC), said Cheng was only seeking to meet his old friends in Hong Kong.
As to whether Cheng would exert pressure on other people, she responded: "How come? He is such a nice person."
Li Fei, deputy director of the Legislative Affairs Commission of the NPC Standing Committee, said the truth of the incident involving Lee and Cheng "had been fully revealed".
"I have nothing more to say about this," he said after attending a local event.
(China Daily HK Edition June 2, 2004)
|
