DATELINE: HONG KONG

Hong Kong's handover to China poses a host of questions for journalists. Hong Kong seems to be operating as it did under the British. Freedom of speech appears unaffected by the transition to Chinese sovereignty. So far, China has stayed its hand. Yet many question remain unanswered.

How can journalists remain free of direct government control when confronted by national leaders who have persecuted and jailed dissidents just across what is now a notional border? In western countries, journalists are to a greater degree insulated from government intervention by a diversified private ownership. In that sense, Hong Kong journalists under the British colonialists, had more freedom of choice than stable liberal democracies such as Australia which pays lip service to freedom of speech yet which allows an American citizen, Rupert Murdoch, to control most of its major newspapers. In comparison, the former colony of Hong Kong boasted of owners ranging from a still cloaked Communist Party to freebooting and irreverent entrepreneurs. Yet it remains to be seen whether China, the new sovereign power, will exercise economic pressure against errant owners in the same way it has done against foreign states who have offended cadres by, for example, supporting Taiwan or opposing the occupation of Tibet. (It should be noted that Hong Kong journalists can report but now longer advocate Taiwanese or Tibetan independence.)

The policy of one country two systems should guarantee editorial independence. But of course, those with access to western histories would know that Beijing has given such assurances before.

How can Hong Kong journalists make a transition to post colonial reporting? International news continues to be dominated by the British Broadcasting Corporation and the western owned news agencies. The reports of the former are frequently tinged with regret for loss of empire, if not bewilderment about the obvious lack of gratitude by the apparently inscrutable Orientals.

But what are the alternatives? The official voice of the new rulers, the New China News Agency, may be couched in the style of western news. Yet it remains tightly controlled by the highest levels of the Communist Party and there is little pretence of fairness or balance in reporting. Critics of mainland policy are at best routinely ignored.

How can reporters deal with an increasingly opaque Hong Kong government? They must now contend with an executive drawn from the top ranks of Hong Kong business; a group not famous for proselytising the public's right to know. They must find their way past a British trained civil service with its colonial alternatives of "good news" or secrecy. The Chief Executive, Tung Chi-hwa, who has been taking lessons fromwestern media handlers, has adopted the practice of accepting only one question from each of the reporters dogging his footsteps. During his recent visit to Washington, where his desire to influence the American public caused him to agree to open news conferences, Mr Tung repeatedly declined to answer critical questions from the Hong Kong press corps travelling with him. In a sense, he was merely recognising the fact that Hong Kong journalists were of little importance to his unelected regime whose electorate was secure in the board rooms of big business and the Communist party.

Under such circumstances, there is little opportunity for reporters to question policy. Conventional reporting techniques are further stymied by the lack of any effective parliamentary opposition who might be quoted. It's unlikely that even limited questions will be asked when Mr Tung appears before the interim Legislative Assembly; who were selected by Beijing largely from those who failed to get elected in Hong Kong's most open election to date. Things can be expected to become even more difficult after the Special Adminstrative Region's first election, which contrary to assurances delivered by the Government Information service, has been painstakingly organised to defeat the democrats favoured by the majority of Hong Kong voters.

Yet investigative journalism techniques which might probe deeper and bypass the publicity flacks remain relatively unknown.

What sort of future is there for Hong Kong journalists? Journalism is taught at three universities in Hong Kong. Teaching has become markedly more careful in some schools with the appintment of lecturers drawn from a Chinese mainland, more accustomed to accommodating the authorities. Advanced investigative techniques will not be taught in courses dominated by communications theorists with minimal journalism experience. Ironically, such short sighted and self serving behaviour is increasingly rejected by many mainland journalists who recognise that western journalism techniques, however flawed, are preferable to undiluted party propaganda.

In spite of all of this, Hong Kong journalism students remain as idealistic as students you might find anywhere. Some of their parents might think they are crazy to seek a degree which might get them a poorly laid and politically dangerous job. Perhaps, it will be up to them to find the answers.

Alan Knight