While WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange finally walks free with his family in Brisbane, Australia, debate continues about press freedom. Assange was deprived of his liberty in one way or another for 12 years before being released by a US court recently after he pleaded guilty to one charge of espionage involving the publication of what the United States called “state secrets”.

The debate ranged around whether or not Assange exposed state secrets in revealing US atrocities, and intelligence gathering relating to unrest in various areas, including Hong Kong.

Governments argue that secrets are necessary to protect society. In Hong Kong, for example, even minor things, such as the agenda for Executive Council meetings, are secret because revealing what is to be discussed could lead to speculation on the stock market or, say, a rush for taxi licenses.

Tens of thousands of US government documents were amassed by Assange through US whistleblower intelligence officer Chelsea Manning, including cables implicating the US consul general in Hong Kong dating back to 2005.

Local media had previously reported that the WikiLeaks cables relating to Hong Kong were sent between 2005 and 2009 under consul generals James B. Cunningham and Joseph R. Donovan Jr. This was a period when Hong Kong was recovering from the global financial tsunami, and Donald Tsang Yam-kuen was its chief executive. Otherwise, it was a rather uneventful period.

The cables referred to regular meetings by the consular staff with former chief secretary for administration Anson Chan Fang On-sang, barrister Martin Lee Chu-ming, who organized anti-government protests, Cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-kiun, who funded anti-government demonstrations, and Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, who is currently facing subversion and sedition charges. These were all big shots and core members in the then opposition camp in Hong Kong.

The cables should have revealed the analysis of these meetings, especially from the four core members of the consular contacts.

In 2007, a vacancy occurred in the makeup of the Legislative Council membership due to the death of Hong Kong Island representative Ma Lik. By this stage, Chan was the key contact for the US, and the consul general pushed for her to run in the by-election. She did and won but retired the following year. A cable from the consul general to Washington in September said that Lai and Lee had successfully lobbied Chan to run for the by-election.

In 2009, the focus switched to the so-called “five district referendum” movement initiated by the Civic Party and the League of Social Democrats, whose goal was to advocate for universal suffrage and the abolition of functional constituencies. The plan called for the resignation of one member from each of the five geographic constituencies to create a series of by-elections. Beijing and the Hong Kong administration asserted that the plan was against the Basic Law. A consular cable to Washington at the time noted that Chan, Lai, Lee and Zen had successfully persuaded Audrey Eu Yuet-mee, then-leader of Civic Party, to launch the movement. However, there was a split among the “pan-democrats”, with the Democratic Party deciding not to participate, believing that negotiation could lead to a better reform package. In contrast, others formed an alliance for universal suffrage to communicate with the government.

The US had long advocated democracy for Hong Kong and, in 2005, over lunch with then-chief executive Donald Tsang, the consul general suggested abolishing the appointed seats of the district councils. Tsang replied that Beijing intended to keep the appointed seats and that doing so unilaterally would end any negotiations with Beijing.

According to press reports, the crunch came in July 2009, when Chan, meeting with the US consul general, asked the US to intervene in Hong Kong affairs and support the “development” of Hong Kong’s democracy. She said, “Beijing will be concerned about the opinions of other countries, especially the comments from the United States.”

These WikiLeaks cables appear incomplete and only contain minimal information without the usual analytical rhetoric one would expect from a diplomat when reporting the state of play to the State Department in Washington. However, they highlight consulates’ activities in monitoring Hong Kong on behalf of foreign governments, even though the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and bilateral consular treaties between various countries all stipulate that consular personnel are obliged not to interfere in the internal affairs of the recipient country.

The author is a former chief information officer of the Hong Kong government, a PR and media consultant and a veteran journalist.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.