The Falun Gong's newspaper, the Epoch Times, is facing closure in Hong Kong because its printer no longer wants to handle such a controversial publication. Likewise no other publisher in Hong Kong will touch it. Regardless of your view of the paper itself and the group behind it, this is another case where the invisible hand of Beijing is weilding influence via self-censorship. No sane businessman will have dealing with the Falun Gong crew, even in semi-autonomous Hong Kong.

Only last week the Court of Final Appeal exonerated eight Falun Gong members who were arrested in 2002. Frank Ching in the SCMP makes some interesting points:

The three Basic Law interpretations - beginning with the one on the right-of-abode issue in 1999 and culminating with the one last month on the term of the next chief executive - have caused considerable damage to Hong Kong's confidence in the rule of law. In contrast, confidence in the judiciary remains strong, especially in the aftermath of the decision last Thursday by the Court of Final Appeal exonerating Falun Gong practitioners who were arrested in 2002 while protesting outside the central government's liaison office in Hong Kong.

However, immediately after the decision was publicised, Wang Rudeng , assistant director of the liaison office, insisted that the Falun Gong members did cause an obstruction and had disrupted the order of the community. But he stressed that he respected Hong Kong's rule of law. There is now a fear, subdued but nonetheless real, that Beijing may disagree with the court ruling, and that the National People's Congress Standing Committee may issue another Basic Law interpretation.

Concern about a possible interpretation has also been voiced in another case being heard by the Court of Final Appeal. Legislator "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung asked Gerard McCoy, the government's lawyer, if he could guarantee that another interpretation would not be sought if the administration lost. He refused to make such a pledge.

Both cases have to do with the right to hold public protests. Already, legislator Ronny Tong Ka-wah has been quoted as voicing concern that the Standing Committee might issue another interpretation if the Court of Final Appeal's decision is "too liberal". He said that freedom of peaceful demonstration was within the ambit of Hong Kong's autonomy and there should not be a fourth Basic Law interpretation.

There is anxiety that if the Hong Kong government loses the "Long Hair" case, then even if it does not ask for an interpretation, the central authorities may, on their own, issue one to limit the right to express public dissent in the city.

Hong Kong was under considerable pressure from Beijing to take action against Falun Gong. In January 2001, the Hong Kong government was attacked by pro-Beijing elements for allowing Falun Gong to rent the City Hall for an international conference attended by more than 1,000 people. A few months later, then chief executive Tung Chee-hwa said in the Legislative Council that Falun Gong was, "more or less an evil cult". Mr Tung said that the government would "monitor closely" followers' every move in Hong Kong.

No doubt those words were meant for the central government's ears. But, while resisting legislation to make Falun Gong an illegal organisation, the Hong Kong government no doubt felt it had to act to assure Beijing that it would not allow the group to run rampant here. However, now that Jiang Zemin is no longer in office, Beijing's reaction to the Falun Gong ruling may well be more subdued. It was he, after all, who initiated the campaign against Falun Gong. Now that the group has been thoroughly suppressed on the mainland, President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao may not consider it so important to ensure that Hong Kong continues to keep Falun Gong practitioners at bay.

However, if Hong Kong's highest court continues to issue rulings that Beijing regards as too liberal, it is entirely possible that the central government may consider another interpretation. Such a move would destroy Hong Kong as a free society, sounding the death knell for "one country, two systems".

Sometimes Beijing doesn't need to do anything to infringe on Hong Kong's freedoms. That's power.