Index relies entirely on the support of donors and readers to do its work.
Help us keep amplifying censored voices today.
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
The National Security Law passed on 30 June in Hong Kong has dealt a massive blow to the city’s status as an autonomous region into which the Chinese government’s suppression of freedom of expression doesn’t encroach. The new law will criminalise “any act of secession, subversion of the central government, terrorism or collusion with foreign or external forces”.
Language like this, as those on the mainland may have experienced, could be manipulated to apply to any behaviour the Chinese government doesn’t like, leaving journalists, activists, protesters and campaigners at risk. Activists in Hong Kong have already begun to shut down their operations out of fear of reprisal in the wake of the law.
Since 1997, when Hong Kong was handed back to China having previously been a British colony, Hongkongers have enjoyed freedom of expression, including a flourishing free press, under the “one country, two systems” constitutional principle. As this principle begins to crumble, we look back at pieces published in Index magazine in 1997 which explored the implications of the handover and the future relationship between mainland China and Hong Kong.
In this edited version of the speech given by Professor Helen Fung-Har Siu in Hong Kong in 1996, she explored the national identity of Hong Kongers and how it intersected with the oppressive nature of the Chinese authorities. In the years preceding the 1997 handover, the people of Hong Kong enjoyed freedom of expression; Siu noted that one in six people there marched in protest at the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre. Dissecting the socioeconomic developments in Hong Kong through the 1970s and 80s, Siu questioned how the region and its people, who are accustomed to independence from China, would adapt to its new relationship with the People’s Republic.
Published in early 1997 in anticipation of the handover, Geremie R Barmé, author of Shades of Mao: The Posthumous Cult of the Great Leader, wrote on the flow of popular culture from Hong Kong and Taiwan to mainland China through the 1980s. He explored how the lure of Beijing’s culture waned through the 70s, leading people to soak up the film and music coming from the south, despite attempts by the authorities to censor it. Hong Kong, independent from the Chinese authorities, acted as a conduit between the people in mainland China and Taiwan, and indeed the rest of the world. Barmé predicted that, as Hong Kong returned to China, the subsection of society supporting communist ideals would be brought to the fore by the mainland.
He wrote: “The patriotic significance of Hong Kong’s return to the mainland is lost on no-one. It is part of the final process of what the Communist authorities, and many people in China, see as the reunification of a divided nation.”
Ma Jian, an artist who left Beijing for Hong Kong in 1990, shared his feelings of liberation as he crossed the border and reflects on the suppression of his art on the mainland. Demanding rights and freedom from the Chinese authorities was, he wrote “like being on a battlefield”. Jian wrote that he would remain in Hong Kong after the handover, but projected a lack of optimism about his future freedoms.
“As we watch, incredulously, pre-ordained history advances, or rather, steps backwards to meet us,” he wrote. “No-one asks whether we accept the past, whether we can go and live the time we have already lived. It is as though, studying at middle school, we are suddenly sent back to kindergarten.”
In July 1998, Edward Lucie-Smith visited Hong Kong to find out how the city was acclimatising to the handover one year on. Finding local people unwilling to discuss at length the direction freedom of speech had taken, Lucie-Smith looked to global economic developments and how they could impact Hong Kong’s political future, and in turn the future of freedom of expression. Hong Kong faced an economic downturn in 1998, along with other so-called ‘tiger-economies’, meaning the Hong Kong Chinese elite, who were middlemen between the democratic forces in Hong Kong and the Chinese authorities, may have chosen to move to other parts of the world, leaving Hong Kong and its people more at risk of being ideologically swallowed up by the mainland.
He wrote: “The general feeling was that the British were handing over an economic jewel – a financial mechanism so successful and so finely tuned that the mainland Chinese government would be foolish to interfere with its functioning. But would it be able to resist tinkering, on ideological grounds, with the ‘special economic zone’ within China that Hong Kong was now to become?”
Published in January 1997, Jonathan Mirsky, then East Asia editor of The Times, wrote on how freedom of expression began to crumble in Hong Kong in anticipation of the handover. He described how news channels reported on China in a “vapid or grovelling” manner, to avoid attempts at censorship by Chinese representatives in Hong Kong.
Outspoken democratic politicians told Mirsky how their colleagues no longer wanted to be associated with them. Organisations were expected to plan celebrations for the handover, and comply. Mirsky predicted a dismal future for Hong Kong where loyalty to the Party would be an overriding expectation.
Charles Goddard, at the time of writing a member of the Hong Kong Journalists Association, discussed Hong Kong’s position as eyes on China for the rest of the world, where issues such as human rights abuses in mainland China could be discussed and dissidents from the Chinese authorities could find a relatively safe haven. Goddard, however, highlighted the dangers to journalists in Hong Kong reporting negatively about China, predicting that the status of the city as a place where freedom of expression could flourish would only diminish.
Liu Dawen, at the time of writing the editor of Front Line magazine, took an optimistic view of Hong Kong’s future, believing that the spirit of democracy would not wane.
“In the longer term, the Party cannot stem the ‘raging tide’ of democracy indefinitely either in Hong Kong or in the People’s Republic. When things reach a certain pitch, the pendulum must swing back in the opposite direction,” he wrote.
Charting the arrests and imprisonments of Chinese journalists, Asia-Pacific researcher for Reporters San Frontieres Barbara Vital-Durand painted a picture of China as a country which cracked down harshly on outspoken dissidents from the party line. She foreshadowed a world in which, post-handover, Chinese authorities would extend the jaws of censorship to crush Hong Kong journalists, and access to the internet on the mainland would be tightly controlled.
“Journalists’ organisations and free speech groups have been unsuccessful in getting the British authorities – or subsequently China’s Preparatory Working Committee (PWC) – to abolish several legislative measures which, if left in place, will provide the Chinese authorities with some powerful weapons to use against the media,” she wrote.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”3″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1593615252756-723f64f2-cdee-10″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”With contributions from Katherine Parkinson, David Hare, Marina Lalovic, Geoff White and Timandra Harkness”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Special Report”][vc_column_text]
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”In Focus”][vc_column_text]
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Culture”][vc_column_text]
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Index around the world”][vc_column_text]
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Endnote”][vc_column_text]
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”Subscribe”][vc_column_text]In print, online, in your mailbox, on your iPad.
Subscription options from £18 or just £1.49 in the App Store for a digital issue.
Every subscriber helps support Index on Censorship’s projects around the world.
SUBSCRIBE NOW[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”Read”][vc_column_text]The playwright Arthur Miller wrote an essay for Index in 1978 entitled The Sin of Power. We reproduce it for the first time on our website and theatre director Nicholas Hytner responds to it in the magazine
READ HERE[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”Listen”][vc_column_text]In the Index on Censorship autumn 2019 podcast, we focus on how travel restrictions at borders are limiting the flow of free thought and ideas. Lewis Jennings and Sally Gimson talk to trans woman and activist Peppermint; San Diego photojournalist Ariana Drehsler and Index’s South Korean correspondent Steven Borowiec
LISTEN HERE[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
FEATURING
Journalist
Issa Sikiti da Silva is an award-winning freelance journalist who has traveled extensively across Africa. Born in Kinshasa, the capital of the Democratic Republic of Congo, he has lived in South Africa and worked as a foreign correspondent in West Africa. His work has been published in nearly 40 media outlets
Actor and playwright
Playwright
David Hare is a playwright and film-maker. He has written over thirty stage plays which include Plenty and Pravda (with Howard Brenton). For film and television, he has written nearly thirty screenplays which include Licking Hitler, The Hours, The Reader and Denial. In a millennial poll of the greatest plays of the 20th century, five of the top 100 were his
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”60471″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]As coronavirus spreads across Europe so too do issues surrounding the transparency and accuracy of information on it. This is deeply troubling given the importance of reliable information about the pandemic. So what exactly are the main roadblocks to accurate facts? Here are the key trends when it comes to coronavirus and free expression in Europe.
Scapegoating
Scapegoating, an unhelpful habit historically used by Russian propagandists to foist blame onto their Cold War opponents, is now being used to suggest that coronavirus may have been brewed in a lab by the Americans in order to cripple the Chinese economy. This is one of many bizarre theories that were spread among the Russian population in a bid to confuse and distract.
Another form of scapegoating has reared its head in France, in particular, in the form of racism against people with Asian heritage. There have been reports of French-Asians suffering racist abuse on the streets, public transport and in school. This has also been an issue in the USA, where President Donald Trump angered Chinese authorities by referring to coronavirus as the “Chinese Virus”.
Criminalisation of “fake news”
In the USA, the term “fake news” can easily be used to discredit accurate reporting that Trump doesn’t like, which is why the criminalisation of news designated as “fake” by world leaders generally is so dangerous. Hungary’s parliament has passed a law to let Prime Minister Viktor Orban rule by decree for an indefinite period of time, and the state has the power to imprison people considered to have spread false information – aka “fake news” – about coronavirus.
This trend is present elsewhere in Europe as governments attempt to control information on coronavirus. Patrick Sensburg, a member of the ruling party in Germany, said in an interview that the government should consider “ratcheting up statutory offenses” to penalise those spreading news considered fake by the state.
Republika Srpska, one of the two entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina, has also introduced fines for publishing false news and allegations that “cause panic and fear among citizens” in the mainstream press and social media.
Opaque about the figures
While high numbers of recorded cases and deaths from coronavirus are something every country would rather avoid, transparency is key to members of the public being fully informed and understanding the risks. According to the Financial Times, Kim Jong Un has publicly denied any cases in North Korea while at the same time quietly soliciting aid from abroad. In Europe, Turkey has displayed signs of being unwilling to disclose accurate figures. On 23 March, after data showed fewer and fewer people were being tested over successive days, possibly to reduce the number of cases on record, the Turkish Medical Association urged the Turkish government to test more people. They believe the government figures may be propaganda, designed to flatter the state’s control of the situation, which a doctor, speaking anonymously, claimed was in fact “out of control”.
Ill-informed leaders
At a time of a global pandemic, world leaders would serve their citizens best by bowing to the greater wisdom of medical experts. Unfortunately, some European leaders have appointed themselves as “experts” in the field of cures for coronavirus, an unfortunate echo of leaders who made false claims about cures for Aids when it swept through Africa. Speaking on state television for instance, President Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus claimed that people in the countryside should continue working: “The tractor will heal everyone. The fields heal everyone”. Serbia’s president, Aleksandar Vucic, said he had found a reason to have an extra drink every day, after he claimed health specialists had told him that coronavirus “doesn’t grow wherever you put alcohol”. Please note: there is no scientific evidence to suggest that drinking alcohol has any effect on coronavirus.
We have previously reported on how censorship in China was impacting the way news about coronavirus was being reported, and vital information being distributed. We are also mapping all of the attacks on the media right now, which are growing sharply by the day. This represents one of the most worrying attacks on free speech in Europe right now.
The incidents on the map are collated by our staff, contributors and readers as well as our partners at the Justice for Journalists Foundation and verified by our team before pubication. Please check out the map here and do notify us via the map of any attacks we might have missed.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][/vc_column][/vc_row]