This paper examines the cultural and political transformation of Hong Kong following its 1997 handover from British to Chinese rule. Focusing primarily on the erosion of press freedom and freedom of expression, it argues that China's promises of autonomy under the "one country, two systems" framework proved largely illusory. Drawing on accounts from the Hong Kong Journalists Association, legal analyses of the Basic Law and Sino-British Joint Declaration, and the experiences of individual journalists, the paper traces how self-censorship, legislative changes, and political pressure reshaped Hong Kong's media landscape. It concludes that Hong Kong's distinct cultural identity — long sustained by independent journalism and civil liberties — faced irreversible pressure under Chinese sovereignty.
Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Indian Prime Minister, once said: "There is a great deal of confusion in my mind and I shall state quite frankly what it is. All kinds of basic questions crop up from what is going on in the world — an obvious thing that people should try to understand one another and to learn from one another. Yet when I look through the pages of history or study current events, I sometimes find that people who know one another quarrel most. Countries which are next door to one another in Europe or in Asia somehow seem to rub one another the wrong way, though they know one another thoroughly." This was somewhat the same case when China took over Hong Kong.
The year 1997 was very significant for both China and Hong Kong, since it announced the end of British rule in Hong Kong and created what is now known as the Special Administrative Region of China. It was only after the first year that the public of Hong Kong felt the effects of the real transition. As Wong Sui Lun observed, "The real transition has been much more complex, subtle and profound... That is because the real transition is about identity and not sovereignty. Thus, real diverse identities lurk below the surface" (Allen Chun, Hong Kong Identity After The End Of History).
It is impossible to claim that Hong Kong has not changed its identity since coming under Chinese rule. The remnants of British authority over the once-colonial territory have deteriorated rapidly since the momentous handover to the Chinese government. The 1997 transfer of sovereignty over Hong Kong set in motion a transformation that would touch every dimension of public life — from language and religion to law, journalism, and political expression.
The people of Hong Kong who were well familiar with the English language began receiving their utility bills in Chinese. Chinese lettering replaced most English signage. Children in school were required to use the local Cantonese dialect for instruction. "Mandarin, too, will be introduced in primary school, further sidelining English. Schools now use English or a mix of Cantonese and English for instruction. With a twist to the proverbial axiom, Hong Kongers are discovering that the more things change, the more things change" (Mindy Belz, Beijing: The New King Of The Old Crown Colony). Many people with Christian convictions no longer feel secure in practicing their faith.
The population of six million people faces critical decisions pertaining to modernization. Many are of the opinion that the handover, despite being planned and well negotiated, was a difficult transition. In the near future, Hong Kong's handover to China will truly reveal whether the workings of democracy and the connection between a modern economy and communism can coexist in the region. Even before the handover, China had begun to exercise its influence over Hong Kong. Officials chose shipping tycoon C. H. Tung as Hong Kong's next leader. His appointees were set to replace the democratically elected body that China said it would eliminate upon taking control. The provisional legislature was expected to rewrite anti-subversion laws that the outgoing British government had modified, and to tighten laws on freedom of information (Hong Kong: Returning To The Fold). Hence, it can clearly be said that the identity of Hong Kong was already undergoing a changing reality.
The clearest proof of Hong Kong's changing cultural identity is seen through its media and press. Hong Kong's media, which once greatly reflected the open-minded nature of the territory, began showing signs of bureaucratic control. One must not forget that Hong Kong came under the administration of China during a period when China itself was facing many paradoxes and dilemmas rooted in its communist past — and it is exactly these elements that began to be projected through the media. According to Basil Fernando:
"Chinese bureaucracy relies heavily on the abuse and denial of due process rights in dealing with dissent. As Hong Kong is a world center of media and communications, it is hardly likely that such abuse of due process rights could take place in Hong Kong without the world's glare. On the other hand, it is not possible to alter the character of Hong Kong as a media and communications center without altering the nature of Hong Kong as a whole" (1997 Transition and The Place Of Hong Kong in the Asian Debate on Democracy and Human Rights).
Before the handover, Hong Kong's media was largely governed by British statute and law. All such laws were annulled after the handover, and as a result Hong Kong's freedom of the press suffered greatly. Soon after the handover, the Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA) served notice on Executive Secretary Tung Chee-hwa. "On July 10, just days after the handover of Hong Kong to China by the British, the HKJA sent Tung a letter criticizing perceived favorable treatment given to official Chinese state news agencies in coverage of the handover" (Lin Neumann, Press Freedom Under The Dragon). Many people complained that Hong Kong's media was giving disproportionate coverage to Tung's early official appearances. Carol Lai stated in a letter that, "If Chinese official media have privileges in reporting, then news and information will very likely be held in the hands of the official media, seriously threatening press freedom" (Lin Neumann, Press Freedom Under The Dragon).
The Hong Kong Journalists Association had existed for twenty-nine years and had around five hundred members at that time. It represents Hong Kong's largest press association and had continuously fought for the country's free press under Chinese government rule. "The group says it will tolerate no backward movement in the battle for free expression. In their letter, the journalists urged Tung to make efforts to preserve the existing media coverage system, which is based on fairness for all involved. In response, Tung's office called the incident a misunderstanding" (Lin Neumann, Press Freedom Under The Dragon). Hong Kong had always been considered an integral media center for the region and for international press operations:
"Hong Kong has long been East Asia's English-language news media capital and, more importantly, the principal safe haven for professional, independent Chinese-language reporting about the internal political and economic affairs of the People's Republic. Readers in the vast Chinese diaspora from Taiwan and Malaysia to British Columbia and California have depended on Hong Kong reporters and publications for decades" (Lin Neumann, Press Freedom Under The Dragon).
The people of Hong Kong grew increasingly anxious about the integrity of press freedom and made every effort to safeguard it. They feared that if their dynamic journalism culture disappeared, it would have profound repercussions across all of Asia.
"Basic Law guarantees shown to be vague and unenforceable"
"Self-censorship, persecution, and Singapore comparisons"
"Residents flee as faith in China's promises collapses"
It can finally be said that Hong Kong's freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, culture, and identity are all based upon meanings defined by the Chinese government. Even though no clear-cut rules exist regarding this interpretation, there is a strong possibility that Hong Kong under Chinese rule will cease to maintain its own distinct character. In the long run, the people of Hong Kong will have to learn to rely on themselves. It will no doubt require many personal sacrifices. The people of Hong Kong must stand together if they hope to save the culture and identity of their homeland.
You’re 36% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.