Perceptions of censorship and self-censorship in Hong Kong - a hindrance to the protection of the right to free expression?

George Adams

"Circus dogs jump when the trainer cracks his whip, but the really well-trained dog is the one that turns his somersault when there is no whip." George Orwell ( in As I Please, Tribune, 7 July 1944).

Article 27 of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong SAR states that:

Hong Kong residents shall have freedom of speech, of the press and publication; freedom of association, of assembly, of procession and of demonstration; and the right and freedom to form and join trade unions, and to strike.

The fact that so many freedoms are squashed together into one paragraph and where none of these rights are clearly defined ought to give rise immediately to concern, particularly when some of the "rights" have been demonstrably infringed, such as the right to demonstrate (the infamous "Beethoven" incident, see e.g. HKVOD (1998) or Ng (1998)) or when such rights in general look increasingly precarious (the Article 23 debate, see e.g. Ng (2003)).

Without the infrastructure to back up such proclaimed freedoms, the freedoms themselves may become meaningless. There is a Press Council in Hong Kong (founded July 2000)but the body has been seen less as a guardian of the press and more a body of censorship (AmCham 2000). Its declared aims are:

..to promote the professional and ethical standards of local newspapers, and in particular, to deal with public complaints arising from the acts of the members of the industry related to intrusion of privacy.(Press Council HK: 2000).

To date, the Council has mainly reacted to public complaints about sensationalistic newspaper reports although making perfunctory noises about general press freedom issues such as the proposed police arrangements to withhold the names of criminal victims (Press Council HK 2001). It has no powers - yet - to penalise but many to condemn and indirectly regulate. In any case, according to Wacks (1995 and 1999 ), privacy and press freedom are notoriously difficult to reconcile.

Guardians of press freedom must be sought elsewhere, for example with the Hong Kong Journalists’ Association, the Hong Kong News Executives Association, the Hong Kong Federation of Journalists and Hong Kong Press Photographers Association. In addition there is the Foreign Correspondents’ Club and more general Human Rights associations and watchdogs. None of these bodies has any legal force.

The legal rights of the press are notably not protected by the battery of laws which protect all the other freedoms of the individual. For this reason, freedom of the press would appear easy to control and remove. The freedom is in the hands of the people who produce the newspapers (we confine ourselves for the sake of argument to newspapers in this essay) and there are very few controls placed upon such owners, editors and writers, at least from an altruistic or principled viewpoint. Mostly, the controls placed upon newspapers are commercial, corporate, political (i.e. of policy) and, occasionally, personal. They rarely amount to the centralised "censorship" and control practiced in China where:

As regards freedom of publication, all mass media enterprises, including newspapers, book publishers, and booksellers, are managed by the state, in accordance with the theory that they should be used to serve the interests of the whole people and should not be monopolised by a few owners of capital as in capitalist society.(Wacks 1992, p. 192).

In the debate about "press freedom" two terms constantly arise in the debate - censorship and self-censorship. There is great confusion on the actual meaning of the words. To our mind self-censorship and censorship may usefully be classified thus:

State censorship - the state controls the press and suppresses dissent

Institutional censorship - the individual newspapers control and slant output by policy

Unconscious self-censorship - the journalists/editors unknowingly suppress material

Conscious self-censorship - the journalists/editors actively suppress material

Institutional self-censorship - the individual newspapers control material in a subtle and indirect manner, by appointment/removal of staff, deployment, operational decisions etc.

Individual self-censorship - the individual journalist censors himself for various reasons, either form a feeling of conviction, fear of upsetting superiors or for a mixture of motives

These definitions are of course provisional, not exclusive and the categories are, we believe, constantly in a dynamic of symbiosis, mutual reinforcement, simultaneous functioning and exchange. Even such a provisional set of categories is often contradicted in reality however.

The HKJA Report 2002 suggests that the sacking of Jasper Becker by the SCMP was "a sign of self-censorship and timidity in China coverage" (HKJA 2000: 9). Thus institutional self-censorship is confused with the active institutional censorship of our paradigm

Of course, one of the manifestations of self-censorship is the sacking of staff, but this may also be regarded as downright censorship, particularly by the staff concerned. Later in the same report (HKJA 2000:18) reference is made to a "new dynamic of self-censorship" as something occurring not in individuals or institutions but in a collective of individuals ("Hong Kong’s elite") which necessarily confuses the definitions even further.

Before we can glimpse the significance of censorship and self-censorship in Hong Kong, it may be useful to take a look at the wider world debate.

Censorship in the United States is increasingly seen less as an operation of the personal domain but one of the insidious influences of "corporate culture" (Solomon 2000). Renowned media observers like Herbert Schiller reflected this view and analysed it succinctly:

" It is not necessary to construct a theory of intentional self control...in truth, the strength of the cultural process rests in its apparent absence. The desired systemic result is achieved ordinarily by a loose but effective institutional process." (Schiller, H. quoted in Solomon 2000).

This was confirmed by one of the leading studies in to the problem conducted by the Pew Research Centre (2000) in which it was found that:

More than half of those who think stories are sometimes ignored say that journalists either get signals from their bosses to avoid such stories or ignore them based on how they think their bosses would react. Of those who believe newsworthy stories are being avoided to protect corporate interests, fully three-quarters say journalists get signals or anticipate negative reactions from superiors, and just 8 percent say journalists decide to avoid such stories completely on their own. (Kohut 2000)

For many observers in the United States , self-censorship is seen as a sort of symbiosis, an ongoing dynamic of self-adjustment in the face of unwritten codes and norms:

Self-censorship extends to lunches and dinner receptions, gyms and golf courses, where writers, agents, editors, and owners mix to discuss everything from other writers, agents, editors, and owners to the world economy. Those who travel in the "power circles" of their sources learn and internalize the norms, no matter how independent they believe they are; those who maintain their independence, or can't afford to be a part of a power-elite, are forever knocking on doors that never open. (Brasch 2000)

For these reasons, the actual mechanics of it are hard to discern:

In contrast to dramatic storms of overt censorship, the usual climate of U.S. journalism is as unobtrusive as morning dew. The dominant seems normal, like a ubiquitous odour. "We scent the air of the office," the great American journalist George Seldes noted in 1931. "We realize that certain things are wanted, certain things unwanted." (Cohen and Solomon 1995).

Some of the most celebrated theorising on the subject has been done by Noam Chomsky, assisted by Ed Herman. Self-censorship may be termed a form of "latent censorship" in Chomsky and Herman’s analysis, in that adherence to the norms of what can be covered and what cannot reflects the corporate culture of the organisation: "self-discipline becomes self-censorship".

In the case of war correspondents, the choice may be between self-censorship and death (McElroy 1999). In modern-day China a combination of denial, bribery and coercion is used to stifle criticism. Reporters are arrested or even murdered. The reaction to the threat may indeed induce "self-censorship" (see for example almost any pages of CPJ Report China 2002).

Self-censorship is also of course difficult to divorce from distortion of the truth and selective reporting (Miller 2002). Political pressure also plays a role (FAIR 2001) .

Nearer to Hong Kong, in Singapore, self -censorship emerges as a burning issue and instead of being taken for granted in definition, is sometimes narrowly defined:

"Self-censorship takes place when an individual who has an alternative political viewpoint, instead of articulating it, chooses to evaluate the consequences. Based on a supposedly rational calculation of the situation, individuals opt to modify their political opinion or refrain from expressing it altogether, especially when it’s against the ruling regime." (Gomez, 2000)

This is of course not a definition of journalistic self-censorship but of political self-censorship, that is the deliberate eschewing of political action. C.H. Tan, in an online forum, took issue with this definition however in a similar way to Kin-Ming Liu in Hong Kong does below:

" ...self-censorship is not the cause, it is merely a symptom. The cause of the lack of free speech is not "self-censorship" but the use of arbitrary laws like the ISA and defamation laws which creates this climate of fear." (Tan 2000).

In nearby Malaysia, censorship and self-censorship appear to be similarly linked:

" ...two forms of self censorship in the Malaysian context - salient censorship in which censorship in which information and images deemed offensive to public taste and morals are omitted; and proscribed censorship in which information that are not in line with governmental discourse is unthinkably spiked....Self-censorship has been practically built into the Malaysian media process through the lessons of history whereby bureaucrats have limited the diversity of public discourse..." (Loo 1998).

Finally, for one African analyst, there is quite a different perspective on self-censorship:

" As we have seen, journalists exercise self-censorship in two ways - one for fear of antagonising the Government and the other to turn a blind eye to misdeeds of public functionaries in exchange for cash." (Puri 1998).

Perceptions of self-censorship in the handover period

There was perhaps no greater conversational, political or indeed academic football at the time of the handover of Hong Kong to the PRC than the issues of censorship and self-censorship. Censorship was generally defined as the imposition of controls by a higher authority, such as the incumbent Communist regime, and self-censorship as the anticipation of such censorship and accommodation of the same by a process of severely watching what one wrote, removing emotive words, phrases or indeed suppressing whole themes of news. For a long time at least there was little debate over the actual concepts, they appeared to be set in stone, until Liu Kin-ming of the April 5th Action Group announced that:

Let's call a spade a spade. We should stop calling the sickness "self-censorship" and name it what it really is -- censorship. Front-line journalists seldom censor themselves. Their stories are usually killed by their superiors. It is plain old censorship. Chief editors, senior managers, and publishers are doing dirty works for the government to water down criticisms or spike offensive stories.

The same article offered another interesting perspective, that there was a particularly Chinese characteristic to self-censorship:

The Chinese people are well known (or infamous) for the process of mind-guessing. You do not wait until the master utters his order before you perform your duties. It would have been too late. Instead, you do the "right" thing before being ordered to do so. This is how "self-censorship" or censorship in the newsroom works also....Chinese people are not well known for sticking our necks out. And I'm afraid journalists in general are no exception

By way of contrast, the same issue of the web page features a report on an actual case of censorship – the banning of a book by Fang Wen, Wrath of Heaven: A Mayor's Severe Crime. There was at least some feeling of certainty here that at least censorship could be defined, if not self-censorship.

The principle problem in all of this was that, like say ugliness or bad taste, everyone thought they knew what self-censorship was, and also what censorship was. Thus a huge media debate rolled out with great certainty about what censorship and self-censorship were and, almost equally certainly, that their presence was growing in Hong Kong.

The US State Department led the way in this assertion:

Although regular coverage of supposedly taboo or sensitive subjects continue to appear in print and in the broadcast media, groups that follow press freedom in Hong Kong assert that media self-censorship continues and that certain subjects are emerging as "no go" areas for some media outlets. Such subjects include topics of particular sensitivity to China or Hong Kong's powerful business interests, leadership dynamics, military activity, Taiwanese or Tibetan independence, or powerful businessmen's relations with the mainland Government.....The pressure to self-censor purportedly comes from the belief by some publishers and editors that advertising revenues or their business interests in China could suffer if they were seen to be too antagonistic to China or to powerful local interests. (U.S. State Department Bureau of Democracy 2001)

No real evidence is given for the assertions and no real definition offered of the terms employed.

Similarly, a report under the auspices of the influential New-York based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) in a report released as early as the 24th September 1997 proclaimed that "in the vibrant Hong Kong press, self-censorship has become a fact of life", citing a survey conducted by Professor Joseph Chan at the Chinese University and, in the same paragraph, following up with a melange of other sources - never referenced or defined - to back up its strident claims:

Over a third of those surveyed practiced some form of self-censorship in criticism of China or large Hong Kong corporations. More than half of the respondents believed that their colleagues censored themselves. In another survey of journalists undertaken by Hong Kong University in 1995, 88 per cent said self-censorship was well-entrenched; 84 per cent in that poll expected the situation to deteriorate under China. Eighty-six per cent of business executives polled by the Far Eastern Economic Review shortly before the handover predicted the press would no longer be free under China. (Lin Neumann 1997).

Nowhere in the article are censorship or self-censorship defined, not to mention also correlated.

Similarly, the renowned Reporters Without Borders organisation opined completely without evidence as recently as 2002 that "self -censorship is strong" in Hong Kong (RSF 2002) whilst the equally influential Index On Censorship Magazine devoted a whole issue in January 1997 to speculation, fear, foreboding and recrimination, notably by the soon-to-be- sacked Jonathan Mirsky.

One of the most exhaustive investigations of the subject of press freedom in Hong Kong was largely composed of discursive interviews of people’s impressions with hardly a single definition of the terms employed (Neilan 2000). Based in Japan, Neilan had very little direct experience of Hong Kong, no pretences to academic discipline yet felt able to write at length about the problem, in common with his colleagues in New York, Washington or Paris. It was not surprising that Jonathan Fenby frequently referred to press freedom in Hong Kong as a "bandwagon".

The debate outside Hong Kong, although vociferous and well-meaning was thus generally not focussed or intellectually coherent. In Hong Kong itself, there were only rarely signs of any analysis or definition of the key concepts in the popular press freedom debate. One important forum of debate was the Internet.

The Hong Kong Voice of Democracy web site dates back to May 1997 and actually began with two articles concerning censorship and self censorship, in particular the case of Lam Chiu Wing, a journalist sacked by Ming Pao for apparently writing a satirical piece about Tung Chee-hwa. Censorship in Lam’s mind quickly turns to self-censorship. In fact, the two are closely related. Shortly after being deliberately censored, Lam wrote a column describing the day to day occurrences in journalism by which the editor brings about self-censorship. The relationship seems to be not only one of cause and effect, illness and symptom (outlined above and elsewhere) but one of symbiosis:

The wind blowing from the North is freezing Hong Kong's newspapers: Control on direct news is being tightened, and journalists are closing the window against the sharp chill. Snow is falling even harder on the columns in the supplement. The columnists there are walking on thin ice now, fearing that the windows might be broken at any time. Broken glass lies scattered on the ground, but they still cannot see the snow they feel. In fact, wind is blowing from inside the house, welcoming the snow from outside. (Anonymous 1997b).

Here, expressed untechnically and in poetic imagery is one of the only attempts commentators in Hong Kong made in the 1990s to examine the mechanics of censorship/self-censorship. Without an analysis and definition there would appear to be little prospect of understanding how such a problem may be overcome. Instead, as above, commentators concentrated on the manifestations of censorship/self-censorship, or rather what they took to be the same.

The debate at - and around - the South China Morning Post was a case in point. It was never made clear, in any of the long deliberations about the reasons behind the removal of Feign, Vittachi, Anderson, Lam, Becker and/or Fenby just where self-censorship commenced and where censorship was imposed. The relationship between the two was indeed rarely gone into, it generally being the case that the journalists would not admit to self-censorship whilst they were in employment and claimed coercive censorship when they left (see Vines 1995, Fenby 2000, Vittachi 2001, Keatley 2001).

Jasper Becker - the last of those mentioned to be fired - noticed the sackings of colleagues at the SCMP but did not feel unduly troubled. He did however notice some less obvious characteristics of "self-censorship":

The paper’s tone began to change, becoming increasingly deferential towards China’s rulers. Reporting became blander and blander. Management talked of the virtues of writing to allow readers to read between the lines. (Becker 2002)

He did not however see a personal dimension in any of this: the self-censorship was purely institutional. Even less did he see a relationship between censorship and self-censorship.

Adams (2002) identified these manifestations of self-censorship:

There are probably many more categories. Self-censorship is a subtle and highly variegated phenomenon. Noticeable in the debate in Hong Kong in the 90s was however a concentration on one simple dynamic: the application of pressure by the owners of newspapers upon employees, in response to the ruling elite of pro-Beijing advertisers and moguls. As noted, there was little or no attention to the real dynamics of the relationship between the agents. There was hardly ever a close look at the responsibility or even neutal role journalists might play in self-censorship, quite without any coercion or even suggestion from employers, even when they came to write their plangent memoirs.

The lack of a true analysis of the dynamics of censorship and self-censorship mitigated against the safeguarding of the nebulous freedoms of free expression. Without knowing how a freedom is infringed upon, it is difficult to know how to protect it. Without the ability to clearly identify an offender, it is difficult to allege an offence.

For this reason much of the debate about the freedom of the press in the 90s was necessarily sterile and ineffective, prone to speculation rather than investigation. The lack of clear definitions probably also reduced the overall freedoms which the debaters wished to protect as the hampered insight into the mechanism by which censorship and self-censorship were established and maintained.

This was not the case with other human rights issues, such as the right of abode or the rule of law in general (e.g. the Sally Aw case). Here the definitions and issues were clearer and the arguments by guardians of freedoms more convincing. In the case of press freedom, generalisations, anecdotal evidence, specious argumentation and suppositions ruled the day and - in the end - prevented sure preservation of the right to free expression.

Perhaps as a result, the freedom of the press slipped in importance as an issue as the cause appeared to become more hopeless and resistant to change. In December 1998, the Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor had already relegated the issue to tenth place on a list of ten "Top Human Rights Issues" (HKHRM 1998). As was usual throughout the period, a few examples are offered in support, the concepts never analysed and the debate is invited to rest there.

Never throughout the period was there a sustained suggestion to safeguard press freedoms through the mechanisms of law. Even less was there the serious suggestion that law could play a part at all.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, G.H. (2002), "Encourager les autres - The redundancy of constitutional law in Hong Kong: strategic hiring firing and self-censorship in Hong Kong." (Unpublished).

American Chamber of Commerce Hong Kong (2000): Factsheet on the proposed Press Council, Hong Kong AmCham: 2000.

Anonymous (1997a), " Fear Eats The Soul of HK Press", Hong Kong Voice of Democracy web site: http://www.democracy.org.hk /pastweek/97_may/fear.htm

Anonymous (1997b), " Tragedy: When A Joke Comes True", Hong Kong Voice of Democracy web site: http://www.democracy.org.hk /pastweek/97_may/tragedy.htm

Anonymous (1997c), "Wrath of Heaven: A Mayor's Severe Crime", Hong Kong Voice of Democracy web site: http://www.democracy.org.hk /pastweek/97_aug/hrw970821.htm

Anonymous (1998), "Protest against the Beethoven Incident" Hong Kong Voice of Democracy web site, June 11 1998, www.democracy.org.hk/pastweek/jun7_13 /protest_beethoven.htm

Brasch, Walt (2002) "Stupid Decisions: Self Censorship in America" Counterpunch Magazine Online, http://www.counterpunch.org/brasch1202.html

Becker, J. (2002) "On Hong Kong’s self censorship" Taipei Times, Wednesday 22nd May 2002.

Committee to Protect Journalists (2002) Annual Report: China, New York: CPJ.

Chomsky, N. And Herman, E., (1988) Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, New York : Pantheon Books.

Chomsky, N. (1989) Necessary Illusions : Thought Control in Democratic Societies Boston, Mass. : South End Press.

Cohen, J. and Solomon, N. (1995) "Routine Somersaults of Self-Censorship" in

Media Beat, September 13, 1995. http://www.fair.org/media-beat/950913.html

FAIR (2001), "Fear and Favor 2001: How Power Saps The News - The Second FAIR Report", New York: The FAIR Organisation (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting).

Fenby, J. (2000) Dealing with the Dragon: A Year in the New Hong Kong, London: Little, Brown and Company

Ghai, J. (1999), Hong Kong’s New Constitutional Order (2nd Edition), Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Gomez, James (2000), Self-censorship: Singapore’s Shame, Singapore: The Think Centre.

Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor (1998) "Top Ten Human Rights Issues 1998", HKHRM Report.

Hong Kong Journalists’ Association (2002) Annual Report, HKJA Hong Kong: 2002.

Hong Kong Press Council (2000) Press release of July 25th, 2000 announcing its inauguration, Hong Kong PC: 2000.

Hong Kong Press Council (2001) Press release of 7th February, 2001 criticising police proposals to protect identify of crime victims, Hong Kong Press Council: 2001.

Keatley, R., Letter to the Editor, South China Morning Post, 14th November 2001.

Kohut, Andrew (2000) "Self-censorship: counting the ways", Columbia Journalism Review: May/June 2000.

Lin Neumann, A. (1997) Freedom Under The Dragon: Can Hong Kong’s Media Still Breathe Fire New York: CPJ.

Liu, K.M. (1997) "Self-censorship is dead", Hong Kong Voice of Democracy (web site), 23 August, 1997: ttp://www.democracy.org.hk /pastweek/97_aug/censorship.htm.

Loo, E. (1998), "Malaysia Media Clampdown", Hong Kong Media Digest (Oct 1998), Hong Kong: Radio Television Hong Kong.

McElroy, Claudia (1999) "When to shut up: War correspondents today must often choose between self-censorship and death." http://www.cpj.org/Briefings/1999 /Self_censor/main.html

Members of the Foreign Correspondents’ Club, Letter to the Editor, South China Morning Post, 11th November 2000.

Miller, M.C. (2002) "From Bozo To Churchill: George Bush’s post-September 11 reinvention", Extra Magazine: May/June 2002.

Neilan, E. (2000), The Suffocation of Hong Kong: Decline of Press Freedom Since the 1997 Handover (Unpublished manuscript).

Ng Margaret (1998) "Freedom of Expression in the Hong Kong SAR", Speech at the Worldwide Application of the ICCPR Conference, 13th June 1998.

Ng, Margaret (2003) "What to look for in the report on consultation on Article 23 legislation", Article in the South China Morning Post, 29th January 2003.

Pew Research Center, (2000) Self-censorship: How Often and Why, report by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, Washington, DC.

Phillips, P. (1998), "Media Censorship and a Free Press in America", http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com /Media/Media%20Censor_ProjCensor.html

Puri, Shamalai (1998), "Self Censorship and the Media", Working Paper presented Sept. 1998 at the Conference of the International Federation of Journalists, Brussels.

RSF - Reporters Sans Frontieres/Reporters Without Borders (2002), China Annual Report 2002, Paris: RSF Secretariat.

Schiller, H. (1989), Culture Inc.: The Corporate Takeover of Cultural Expression, New York, OUP (cited in Solomon 2000).

Solomon, N. "Self-censorship is shadowing the new media era", Extra Magazine: March 9, 2000.

Tan, C.H. (2000) Letter to "Singaporeans For Democracy", Sept 4th 2000: www.sfdonline.org.

U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labour, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2001.

Vines, S. (1995) 'Mystery death of Lily Wong', article in The Independent, 23 May 1995.

Vines, S. (2002) Too Much Hot Air, article in the Hong Kong I-Mail, 25th March 2002.

Vittachi, N. (2001) North Wind, Hong Kong: Chameleon Press.

Wacks, R. (1992) Human Rights in Hong Kong, New York: Oxford University Press Inc.

Wacks, R. (1995), Privacy and Press Freedom, London: Blackstone Press.

Wacks R. (1999), "Privacy and press freedom: oil on troubled waters", Media and Arts Law Review, December 1999.