Some opposition lawmakers have made a big deal of comments concerning a “sense of national identity survey” conducted by University of Hong Kong’s Chung Ting-yiu. The issue arose after a critical opinion on the survey was expressed by Hao Tiechuan, who is in charge of publicity, cultural, education and sports affairs at the Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government in the Hong Kong SAR.

The real purpose of the verbal attacks on Hao is to deny the right of free speech to central government officials working at the Liaison Office. This writer believes that, according to the “One Country, Two Systems” principle, the Liaison Office represents the central government here and its officials have the right to comment on a wide range of issues, including the following:

1. Resolutely defend the country’s honor and interests

For myriad reasons, both historical and present, some people in Hong Kong tirelessly spread all kinds of notions to tarnish the country’s honor and harm its interests while certain self-serving media entities offer a podium for such rhetoric on a daily basis.

In early September Wikileaks.org published thousands of classified documents revealing close contacts between a small number of local politicians and the US Consulate General in Hong Kong. The contacts were widely interpreted as opening the door for the US government to interfere in Hong Kong affairs, which are part of China’s internal affairs by default.

The Liaison Office, through its senior officials, made appropriate comments critical of the erroneous notions in a timely fashion and provided local residents with guidance toward learning the truth about and reasons behind those fraudulent remarks. The central government officials in these cases were performing a mandated duty that comes with their jobs.

2. Firmly protect the central government’s authority and interests

Some political forces and media entities in Hong Kong maintain doggedly their political standing of opposing and even subverting the central government, seizing every opportunity to publicize their ambitions with any event and issue as an excuse. As the international situation became more complex and the reform drive brought many social conflicts to the surface, some political forces and media entities went out of their way to distort facts and make insulting comments about the central government. There were issues over Liu Xiaobo, Ai Weiwei and the “jasmine revolution”. The same forces also clamored for a change of China’s political system and calling for pressuring the central government.

The Liaison Office responded to such rhetoric through its senior officials, who refuted those misleading and abusive comments. Patiently the senior officials explained the central government’s decisions on those issues to the Hong Kong press, effectively preventing those anti-central government elements from whipping up a storm of words.

3. Unequivocally maintain the heartening situation where Hong Kong’s public sentiment toward national identity is positively growing

Growing public consensus on national identity is a logical result of the handover of sovereignty over Hong Kong back to China and a must for the SAR to maintain its prosperity and development in the future. The only way for the anti-China political forces to exist in Hong Kong is to prevent the public from accepting the national identity and to create a sense of detachment among Hong Kong residents. That is why they wantonly exaggerate misunderstandings and inconveniences that are bound to happen as the scale of integration between Hong Kong and the mainland grows.

They raised issues such as the addition of national education into regular curricula at primary and secondary schools, the environmental impact assessment report of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge construction project and the so-called opinion poll on Hong Kong residents’ sense of national identity. Of course they would never make their ulterior motives public, which is why it is absolutely necessary for central government liaisons to do their best in justly publicizing their standing and explaining to the press why.

This writer believes the three points listed above are currently the main focus of public comments by central government liaisons. It should be noted, however, that the Liaison Office’s right of speech is not limited to the three areas. It should and must voice its opinion on any other issue if the circumstance warrants.

The author is a veteran current affairs commentator.