Friday, Oct. 22

MIRO CERNETIG
The Globe and Mail; With a report from Associated Press
Tuesday, October 19, 1999

Hong Kong -- Two landmark cases before Hong Kong's Court of Final Appeal will decide tomorrow how deep Beijing's control over the former British colony has become.

In one case, the judges will decide whether citizens can burn the Chinese flag, an act that incenses Beijing, but is seen by many in Hong Kong as a measure of political freedom.

In the other, they will rule whether China's government can overturn court decisions that the Communist regime does not agree with.

"People are alarmed [that] Hong Kong is losing some of the freedoms it used to enjoy under British colonial rule," said Emily Lau, a pro-democracy member of Hong Kong's legislative council.

"It wasn't a paradise under the British, but things that were tolerated in the past are not being tolerated now. There have been alarming signals."

She said one of them came recently in Hong Kong's Mongkok district, where a flag of Taiwan was displayed on private property until it was ripped down by a plainclothes police officer.

Under British control, flying the Taiwan flag was often overlooked, even though it was a controversial act. Asked why the flag was taken down, a police spokesman spoke of mainland policy, telling reporters that it was "to protect the principle of one China." (China claims the island is a breakaway province.)

From the day it took back Hong Kong a little more than two years ago, China's Communist Party leadership has sloughed off accusations that it would be unable to resist meddling in Hong Kong's internal affairs.

But Beijing's heavy hand in what used to be known as Asia's freest city is becoming impossible to deny. China's top man in Hong Kong, chief executive Tung Chee-hwa, has even gone so far as to tell pro-democracy legislators to drop the emotional baggage of the June 4 Tiananmen Square massacre of pro-democracy students in 1989.

"I hope the Democratic Party and the democratic camp will improve their understanding of the country of China," Mr. Tung said. "I have mentioned my hope that you can prove your worth in every respect, but I've looked again and again and seen nothing."

"Mr. Tung Chee-hwa has shown himself absolutely as Beijing's mouthpiece in Hong Kong," said Martin Lee, the leader of Hong Kong's Democratic Party, who has been denied visas to enter China.

"Nobody knows if Mr. Tung is told what to say by Beijing, . . . but the influence of China on him is obvious to see. There is growing concern that Hong Kong will just become another Chinese city."

A watershed in Hong Kong's future will be the Final Appeal Court's decisions tomorrow.

"When these cases are heard before the court, issues of state power versus the jurisdiction of the court will be seriously challenged," said Law Yuk-kai, director of the Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor.

"It's quite crucial for the rule of law in Hong Kong, and crucial for freedom of expression."

The five judges will first take up the flag-burning case. Two participants at pro-democracy rallies, Ng Kung-siu and Lee King-yung, are fighting a conviction under the flag-burning law that took effect after the handover and carries penalties of up to three years in prison.

The Court of Appeal threw out their convictions, saying the law violated their free-speech rights.

Hong Kong leaders want Beijing to weigh in, and are asking the Court of Final Appeal to seek an opinion from China before it rules, according to a source familiar with the case. The source agreed to speak only if granted anonymity.

Earlier this year, in another controversial immigration case, the Court of Final Appeal ruled that children of Hong Kong residents living in China had the right to live in Hong Kong. Many of the children are the offspring of Hong Kong men whose mistresses live in China.

Beijing told the court that it had gotten the law wrong.

Critics say that if the court bows to Beijing's interpretation of the law in a new immigration case to begin Oct. 25, that will effectively make Beijing the "court of semi-final appeal."

Last year, Mr. Tung ushered through a controversial policy requiring schools to teach Mandarin as the main language. In the past, schools were allowed to decide such matters on a more local level, meaning English was often preferred after the local Cantonese language.

China's influence, like Mr. Tung's in Hong Kong, is far from absolute, of course. The proof is that legislators even dare to debate Mr. Tung at all. Unlike China, where newspapers do not discuss government discord, Hong Kong's newspapers have splashed the recent fracas on their front pages.

But there is no denying that in the past few weeks, Mr. Tung has further cemented his reputation as the Communists' man in Hong Kong. Many say he is helping China to slowly absorb Hong Kong, eroding the rule of law and the independence that the Communist regime promised to leave untouched for the next half-century.

"Maybe Beijing should have been honest from the start and said absorption into China is inevitable," Ms. Lau said. "But that isn't what they said."