May 14, 2001 Last week's Fortune Global Forum was a test of Hong Kong's autonomy, and the Special Administrative Region failed. When Chinese President Jiang Zemin came to town, the administration of Chief Executive Tung Chee Hwa tried to protect him from embarrassment instead of defending the right of peaceful demonstrators to express their views. The Hong Kong government insists it was only acting in accordance with the law when it detained and deported more 100 members of the Falun Gong spiritual movement. But this non-explanation only makes the expulsions stand in starker contrast to Hong Kong's former respect for civil liberties and the rule of law. So far, the best excuse the territory's government could muster was new Chief Secretary Donald Tsang's claim that while "certain undesirable elements" are regularly blocked from entering Hong Kong, none of the Americans, British, Japanese and others were barred for their affiliation with Falun Gong. This is patently untrue. The testimony of those expelled, which we consider credible, shows that immigration authorities were working from a blacklist of the group's overseas practitioners. Mr. Tsang should know that legal tautologies don't justify the arbitrary deportation of foreign nationals who by treaty are allowed entry into Hong Kong without visas. Only a few weeks into the job, he is off to a bad start as the territory's top civil servant. The deportations came amid the largest security operation mounted in Hong Kong since Britain returned the territory to China in 1997. That's hard to understand since not only is Falun Gong legal in Hong Kong, it has no history of violent protest. As on the mainland, where the [...] group is banned, followers have staged only a few public protests at which they sit quietly in the lotus position and meditate. Yet the Hong Kong security forces tightly corralled local Falun Gong members to prevent the group from using Mr. Jiang's attendance to publicly protest the imprisonment of thousands and torture-killings of some 200 mainland followers. Residents of Hong Kong are accustomed to questions from friends abroad about how the territory has changed since the 1997 handover. Until now, most could say the city had not changed much. That is no longer true. The territory's constitution, the Basic Law, guaranteed that civil liberties previously enjoyed were to remain for 50 years under the "one country, two systems" policy. The goal was to preserve Hong Kong's way of life under the sovereignty of an authoritarian state. The difficulty of achieving that is now becoming apparent. There were early signs Mr. Tung was never fully committed to the goal. From its earliest days, his government behaved as if the constitution was open to renegotiation whenever Beijing chose. It bartered away the independence of Hong Kong's judiciary, junked the territory's last remaining directly elected lawmaking bodies and tacitly encouraged press self-censorship by joining mainland voices defining what types of news should be published. It tried to quash academic public opinion research unflattering to the government. Aid to Hong Kong academics and business people who have disappeared into the maw of China's state security apparatus has been feeble at best. And it sees as inevitable a law against sedition that would enable the government to outlaw Falun Gong. All this to no audible outcry from the outside world. These columns have long praised Hong Kong for its fundamental commitment to open markets and clean, efficient government. The Wall Street Journal-Heritage Foundation's annual Index of Economic Freedom has ranked Hong Kong as the world's freest economy for seven consecutive years, citing its free trade policy, low taxes and emphasis on the rule of law. But they have also asserted that the erosion of civil liberties bodes ill for the expansion of economic freedom in the future. Human rights and pro-democracy groups worried about the assault on basic rights try to hold Mr. Tung and his ilk accountable, but their issues are disparate and voices increasingly reactive. The opposition Democratic Party has collapsed as an effective advocate amid factional infighting. Other influential voices have excelled in rationalizing the situation. They reason that Hong Kong's leaders are astutely walking a fine line that divides the minimum protection of civil liberties while staying within the limits of Beijing's tolerance. A troubling question is whether this slippery slope will lead to the anti-sedition law. The precedent is China's 1997 Criminal Code in which crimes "endangering state security" were so broadly defined as to make enforcement inherently arbitrary. There's no assurance that under Beijing's thumb Hong Kong's legal officials will produce anything different. No wonder the territory's Roman Catholic diocese, warning how the concept of state security in the mainland is used to justify violations of basic rights, including peaceful acts of freedom of expression and association, has vigorously defended the Falun Gong. If Hong Kong insists on becoming more like China in the worst ways, then the U.S., Britain and other nations should of course take note. Lumping Hong Kong together with China in annual human rights reports would be a start. Non-governmental human rights groups could refocus their monitoring efforts on religious freedom in Hong Kong. Anything less might suggest to Mr. Tung's administration that its intimidation of peaceful groups like Falun Gong is acceptable to the outside world. If Mr. Tung's government wants to address these concerns, it could stop confusing "rule by law," as it is used in Beijing these days, with the impartial and independent rule of the Western common law system that was supposed to prevail in Hong Kong after the handover. And it could move swiftly to establish by law an independent human rights commission that investigates and mediates complaints, monitors the implementation of international treaties and recommends legislation when appropriate. It's ironic that on the final day of last week's forum, Mr. Tung unveiled the territory's new logo and accompanying slogan, "Asia's world city," saying he wanted Hong Kong to "play the same role London plays for Europe and New York plays for North and South America." It will take more than a simple exercise in branding to restore the credibility Hong Kong needs to achieve such a lofty goal.