On June 22, the Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA) elected its new executive committee. Selina Cheng from The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) was elected as its chairperson. The new committee is mainly composed of journalists from foreign media and freelancers. At first glance, one might mistake it for an organization representing foreign journalists in Hong Kong. It goes without saying, the backgrounds of its successive chairpersons, as well as their elections, have raised the public’s concerns about the organization.
But perhaps of more significance to public perception is the recently held election process for the organization’s executive committee. Questions about procedural justice have arisen after an aspiring candidate for the chairperson post was deprived of her right to move forward in the process.
Sherry Lee, editor-in-chief of the online media True Report, had earlier announced her candidacy for the post of HKJA chairperson. However, the HKJA claimed that, upon verification, one of her two nominators had withdrawn their nomination. According to reports, after confirming the withdrawal of the nomination on May 31, the HKJA immediately emailed Lee, notifying her of her need to submit a new nomination by 6 pm that day. Ultimately, no response was received, and the HKJA announced that only one candidate (Selina Cheng) had a valid nomination for the chairperson position. Lee, on the other hand, said that the HKJA had not given her enough time to submit a new nomination, suggesting the possibility of electoral manipulation.
While it is hard to ascertain the whole story behind the election process that has given rise to questions about procedural justice, from the clues emerging afterward, it’s not difficult to see why Lee felt very aggrieved at being deprived of her candidacy. For instance, on learning of the nomination withdrawal, the HKJA sent a notification to Lee through email only and gave her less than a day to submit a new nomination. This occurred on a regular workday. Expecting a busy journalist to submit a new nomination by 6 pm, rather than 10 pm or 11 pm, and without notifying her by phone or instant messaging, is an abnormal, unreasonable and questionable act. In short, procedural justice was ignored.
This abnormal practice reminds people of the HKJA’s practices during the “black-clad” riots in 2019-20. At the height of the riots, the HKJA issued HKJA membership cards for HK$20 ($2.56) to almost anyone who cared to have one for whatever purpose. Numerous protesters, some as young as 13 years old, were able to obtain a “journalist ID” or “journalist credentials” from the HKJA. As a result, flocks of “student journalists” — a euphemism for fake journalists — showed up at the scene whenever protesters and rioters confronted police officers, acting as a human shield for the rioters by obstructing the operations and movements of police officers. Those fake journalists, facilitated by the HKJA’s accreditation, were comrades of the protesters and rioters.
The HKJA claims to have 300 members. But its membership has reportedly dropped by two-thirds from its peak. The HKJA has three types of members: full members (journalists), PR members, and student members. The number of journalists and PR professionals in Hong Kong amounts to at least several thousand. With only around 300 members, how can the HKJA claim to represent all Hong Kong journalists? And whose interests does it represent?
Hong Kong society should not hold its breath while waiting for the HKJA to turn over a new leaf under Cheng’s leadership. Cheng, a journalist for the WSJ, has repeatedly denigrated Hong Kong on many issues in articles she has had published in the paper; in particular, she has smeared the National Security Law for Hong Kong (NSL) and the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance (SNSO). The WSJ has published numerous articles attacking the NSL and the SNSO.
Apart from Cheng, many HKJA executive committee members have worked or currently work for foreign media outlets that have never missed an opportunity to paint China and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in a bad light, such as the BBC and The Washington Post. In the latest election, only those candidates endorsed by Cheng went on to become executive committee members. All those who were not endorsed failed to gain a seat. It’s fair to say that Cheng’s cabinet won overwhelmingly.
Some may argue that it is challenging to find local media journalists to serve on the HKJA executive committee. This is fallacious. There are numerous media outlets operating in Hong Kong, with many journalists. Just look at how many journalists attend the chief executive’s news conferences. The reality is, the HKJA has earned itself a bad reputation because of its relentless badmouthing under the guise of “press freedom” of anything to do with China, and this has served to deter many local journalists.
The HKJA’s anti-China and anti-HKSAR government track record is extensive. For instance, Ronson Chan, the incumbent chairperson until July 1, has also missed no opportunity to portray the HKSAR government in a bad light, opposing government policies for the sake of opposing them in many cases. He seems more of a political activist than a journalist. For example, in November 2019, Chan teamed up with a group of journalists from several media outlets, including Inmedia and Stand News, to disrupt a police news conference, eventually causing the news conference to be aborted. By wearing helmets with protest slogans on them to the news conference, they acted in a way that political activists do, while presenting themselves as “reporters”.
Chan also refused to disclose the sources of substantial funds received by the HKJA. In mid-July 2019, the HKJA established the “Journalist Protection Fund”, claiming to provide legal aid to journalists involved in violent activities or getting into trouble. The first day of crowdfunding raised HK$1.16 million, an astonishing amount in such a short time, raising concerns about the sources of the funds. Secretary for Security Chris Tang Ping-keung urged the HKJA to disclose the funding sources to alleviate public concerns. Chan refused to disclose the sources, using the need to protect “personal privacy” as his excuse for not doing so. If the HKJA has never received funding from external forces, why can it not be transparent about its financial status to demonstrate its innocence?
Given the HKJA’s track record, its flawed process in electing its new executive committee, and China-bashers calling the shots, what can Hong Kong society expect of it?
The author is a former information coordinator of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government and a member of the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macao Studies.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
