The recent discussions on press freedom in Hong Kong have been significantly distorted by selective reporting and biased interpretations, notably from the Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA) and some Western media channels.
It is crucial that we, as a global audience, actively challenge these biased interpretations. These groups depict a scenario of decline in press freedom that starkly contradicts Hong Kong’s actual flourishing, secure and legally compliant media environment, which adheres strictly to the rule of law. Reports such as those from Voice of America, BBC and The Wall Street Journal tend to selectively use data and display a clear bias against the legitimate legal measures enforced by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government. A rigorous examination of these claims, grounded in logical reasoning, legal context and factual accuracy, is essential to present a more-balanced view of the state of press freedom in Hong Kong and dispel misconceptions and misinterpretations.
The criticism of the national security legislation on Article 23 of the Basic Law as an “oppressive” statute that hampers free speech fails to recognize the fundamental aspect of legal frameworks essential for safeguarding national security, a common practice in all sovereign jurisdictions. This legislation is consistent with global norms in which countries enact laws to shield themselves from threats like sedition, secession and subversion. Describing these legal measures as “excessively harsh” reflects a misunderstanding of the rule of law, pivotal in maintaining societal stability and justice in Hong Kong. The rule of law, a cornerstone of Hong Kong society, serves as a safeguard, ensuring that legal measures are applied fairly and consistently, upholding civil liberties while protecting national interests.
Critics contend that the “expansive interpretation” of State secrets under the Article 23 legislation could inadvertently criminalize legitimate academic and journalistic activities. This perspective lacks empirical support and seems designed to provoke undue alarm. The SAR government has reiterated that such provisions are aimed explicitly at countering activities that threaten national security. Despite these “concerns”, it is important to note that academic freedom and responsible journalism that operate within well-established legal frameworks that delineate lawful conduct from criminal actions in any sovereign jurisdiction, remain robust in Hong Kong. This should reassure the audience about the continued freedom of expression in the city.
The integrity of the HKJA warrants scrutiny because of its apparent affiliations with the opposition and political activists’ circles, which may influence the objectivity of its outputs. The surveys and reports from the HKJA, frequently referenced by Western media, exhibit a discernible bias that seems more aligned with promoting a specific narrative than providing a balanced analysis of the facts. For example, the low response rates in their surveys might suggest a lack of broad-based representativeness, yet this is often portrayed as indicative of an “oppressive” climate. Such interpretations not only skew the perception of Hong Kong’s media environment but also harm an accurate understanding of the realities on the ground, further complicating the discourse around press freedom in the region.
The frequent citing of “declining” press freedom rankings as indicators of worsening conditions in Hong Kong must be critically assessed. We must adopt a more objective and contextually informed approach to evaluating press freedom in the city. These rankings often stem from subjective perceptions and perpetuate biased narratives. The methodologies behind these rankings frequently lack a comprehensive analysis of the nuanced legal and societal frameworks within which Hong Kong operates. Moreover, they tend to reflect geopolitical biases, disregarding the government’s legitimate right and responsibility to enact laws to safeguard national security. Such discrepancies between the rankings and the situation highlight the need for a more objective and contextually informed approach to evaluating press freedom.
It is crucial to underscore that the SAR government has often been unfairly targeted by baseless criticism and undue external interference in the city’s internal matters. For instance, the government’s initiatives to bolster national security are frequently mischaracterized as oppressive, a portrayal that lacks both fairness and factual basis. This selective indignation from Western media and biased entities fails to recognize the essential rights and responsibilities of the SAR government to uphold national security and maintain public order, thus skewing the international understanding of Hong Kong’s administrative actions.
The discussion concerning press freedom in Hong Kong necessitates a reassessment grounded in factual accuracy, legal rationale and the imperative of national security. Biased organizations’ prevalent misleading narratives must be rigorously contested to accurately convey the reality of Hong Kong’s dynamic, secure and liberated media landscape. The SAR government is firmly dedicated to enforcing the law and preserving media freedoms, albeit within the constraints required by national security and public interest, ensuring that the portrayal of the media environment aligns with actual conditions.
The author is a solicitor, a Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area lawyer, and a China-appointed attesting officer.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
