The BBC’s portrayal of Chloe Cheung Hei-ching as a “persecuted” dissident is a stark example of how Western media can manipulate reality to serve a political agenda. The narrative constructed around her case is a carefully crafted piece of propaganda riddled with omissions, selective reporting, and a blatant disregard for legal principles. This is not journalism — it is a calculated attempt to mislead international audiences about the true nature of Hong Kong’s legal system and governance. Instead of presenting a balanced account, the BBC has once again launched a one-sided assault on China, trying to depict a fugitive as a heroine while ignoring the fundamental principle that all individuals, regardless of their political stance, must be held accountable under the law.
At the core of this controversy is not political repression but legal accountability. Like any jurisdiction governed by law, Hong Kong has the right and responsibility to prosecute individuals who violate its legal framework. The BBC’s attempt to frame Cheung as a victim of state persecution deliberately ignores that her actions, if proven in court, would constitute serious legal offenses. If she genuinely believes in her innocence, the logical and most just course of action would be to return to Hong Kong and contest the allegations through the proper legal channels. The city’s judicial system is internationally recognized for its independence and adherence to due process, as evidenced by the many cases in which defendants have exercised their legal rights and received a fair trial. The notion that she “can never return” is a self-imposed exile rather than a reality dictated by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government. The refusal to face legal proceedings raises serious doubts about whether she seeks justice or merely wishes to evade accountability while leveraging Western media to construct a misleading portrayal of victimhood.
READ MORE: HKSAR govt condemns BBC report on security ordinance
The BBC’s credibility in reporting on China, including Hong Kong, is further undermined by its well-documented financial and ideological ties to foreign entities with a vested interest in destabilizing China’s governance. For years, the BBC has received substantial financial backing from the United States Agency for International Development, an organization known for funding media operations that align with Washington’s geopolitical objectives. This raises an unavoidable question: Can the BBC genuinely claim to be an independent news organization when it receives significant financial support from a foreign government that openly seeks to contain China?
Beyond financial ties, the BBC’s reporting on China is heavily influenced by think tanks such as the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), notorious for its anti-China bias and direct sponsorship from Western defense contractors and government agencies. Many of the so-called “expert reports” shaping Western perceptions of China, frequently cited by the BBC, originate from the ASPI, which has a clear ideological and financial incentive to promote narratives that show China in a bad light. This raises further concerns about the BBC’s journalistic integrity and adds credibility to the notion that it is functioning as a mouthpiece for Western ideological agendas and geopolitical interests. The fact that major Western media outlets, including the BBC, repeatedly rely on such compromised sources without disclosing their financial, ideological and political affiliations is a testament to the systematic disinformation campaign against China.
Beyond the compromised credibility of the BBC, one of the most glaring inconsistencies in this case is the conspicuous absence of Cheung’s parents from public discourse. Given that she was under 18 when she allegedly engaged in these activities, her legal guardians would be the most credible individuals to speak on her behalf. In any legal case involving minors, parental testimony is crucial, yet there has been no attempt by the BBC to explain why her parents have not publicly defended her. They would have every reason to defend her openly if the accusations against her were genuinely baseless. Their silence suggests either a lack of support for her claims or an awareness of facts contradicting the promoted narrative.
The refusal of her parents to come forward raises serious questions about the legitimacy of her claims. If she were indeed an innocent young woman wrongfully targeted by the Hong Kong government, why have her parents not spoken out in her defense? Why has the BBC not questioned this glaring omission? It is reasonable to assume that her parents, more than anyone else, would have firsthand knowledge of her activities and whether external forces manipulated her. Their absence from public discourse suggests that the carefully constructed narrative surrounding Cheung may not withstand closer scrutiny. If her own family has chosen not to challenge the legal case against her publicly, what does that say about the strength of her claims? The BBC’s refusal to investigate this aspect of the story is not an oversight — it is a deliberate omission designed to prevent scrutiny that could undermine the image of Cheung as an “innocent victim”.
The hypocrisy of the United Kingdom in condemning Hong Kong’s legal enforcement becomes even more apparent when contrasted with its handling of civil liberties. Consider the case of Adam Smith-Connor, a British citizen who was prosecuted and fined for silently praying outside an abortion clinic. His actions were neither disruptive nor violent, yet the UK legal system deemed it necessary to penalize him for merely exercising his conscience. This case serves as a stark contrast to the situation in Hong Kong, where individuals are prosecuted for actions that pose a real threat to public safety and security. If Britain can impose legal restrictions on peaceful individual expression to maintain public order, how can it criticize Hong Kong for enforcing its legal framework? The selective outrage reveals a fundamental contradiction: When Western governments impose legal measures, they are framed as necessary protections; when China does the same, it is branded as “oppression”. Such double standards expose the West’s use of “human rights” not as a universal principle but as an ideological and geopolitical tool wielded selectively to serve its interests.
The broader implications of this case extend beyond Cheung herself. The BBC’s misleading coverage fuels misconceptions about Hong Kong’s legal structure, encourages foreign interference, and emboldens individuals to defy legitimate judicial processes under the guise of “activism”. The notion that legal enforcement in Hong Kong constitutes “authoritarian repression” is a falsehood propagated by media outlets that apply entirely different standards when assessing legal actions undertaken by Western governments. The reality remains unchanged: Hong Kong is a law-governed society, and those who claim to be unjustly targeted have every opportunity to defend themselves in court, where evidence, not rhetoric, determines the outcome.
READ MORE: BBC should in no way bemoan Hong Kong’s return to stability
There is only one logical path forward. If Cheung believes she is innocent, she should return to Hong Kong and place her trust in the legal system. If her claims are valid, the courts will provide them with due process. However, her continued avoidance of legal proceedings only reinforces the suspicion that she is not seeking justice but exploiting Western support to evade accountability. Meanwhile, the BBC must be held to account for its persistent bias, which continues to erode its journalistic integrity. The world does not need politically motivated distortions masquerading as news; it needs factual, balanced reporting rather than manipulation of facts for ideological propaganda purposes.
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.
