Anti-CE papers assert exclusive domain over freedom of expression

中國日報香港版 P04 Hong Kong By Ho Leong-leong
2009-10-31

By Ho Leong-leong
Scathing and continuous attacks on Chief Executive (CE) Donald Tsang by several widely circulated local Chinese-language newspapers since October 16 through sensational front-page news stories, headings, and commentaries have become the talk of the town. So has the CE’s public rebuttal of these allegations on October 26.
The newspaper attacks all started on October 16, as if orchestrated, as they arose from the CE’s policy address delivered on October 15. Instead of commenting on the policy address as a whole, those newspapers picked on a relatively minor issue – the measure to promote energy-saving light bulbs. The newspapers claimed that Tsang proposed the initiative with the intention to benefit his son’s father-in-law, Mok Kam-tsuen.
They focused on this charge and blew it out of proportion, even comparing Tsang to former Taiwan leader Chen Shui-bian, who is well-known for his corruption.
Such comparison was sensational enough, but Hong Kong people have their own judgment. Is Tsang another Chen Shui-bian? The vast majority of them would say “no”.
Mok later made a public statement, giving the community a more complete picture of the issue.
Frankly speaking, the measure to promote the use of energy-saving light bulbs has left room for discussion and improvement. But to interpret the policy as the CE’s attempt to use his power to achieve some private purposes is not only incongruent with the facts, but also reflects the extent to which some newspapers are willing to go in their politically charged anti-Tsang campaign.
Seeing that the light bulb accusation has failed to create enough trouble for Tsang, those newspapers have made another “revelation” – Tsang’s sister-in-law, who was a victim in the Lehman Brothers mini-bond issue, was able to receive compensation much earlier than others who like her purchased minibonds.
This has triggered outrage among the minibond holders who have been led to believe that Tsang’s relatives enjoyed special privilege in this matter.Subsequently a legislator came forward to explain that he had helped Tsang’s sister-in-law without Tsang’s knowledge. Since then the attack on the CE has been unable to gather further momentum.
When he returned to Hong Kong from an overseas vacation, Tsang made a strong criticism against the groundless accusations hurled at him.
As a CE, he must provide explanations and clarifications over issues raised by the public and media concerning his integrity. Otherwise those newspapers attacking him would think he was weak and could be pushed around, and would even believe that the public is also disappointed. We can see that effect recently in the relationship between American President Barack Obama and FOX TV.
Instead of responding to Tsang’s charge that the accusations printed in the newspapers were “groundless”, the hostile newspapers alleged that Tsang was trying to suppress press freedom.
This is weird logic. Is there such a kind of press freedom under which only the press have the right to criticize other people but those criticized do not have the right to respond?
Why is fighting back against those who blow up minor issues in order to slander others considered to be suppression of press freedom?
Attacking Tsang serves two purposes: First it is to interfere with the constitutional reform consultation beginning in November. Second it is meant to sway public opinion in favor of the opposition camp ahead of the 2012 CE election.
But I believe the majority of Hong Kong people would not have their sensible judgment on the CE and the SAR’s general situation clouded by those unfounded claims.
The author is a political commentator of the Phoenix Satellite TV