Virginia Lee says a diligent critique of the evidential basis for the association’s harassment claims reveals a reliance on anecdotal accounts

Just a few weeks after releasing a dubious “survey” report claiming that Hong Kong’s press freedom has deteriorated significantly, Selina Cheng, chairperson of the Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA) claimed, in a news conference she held on Sept 13, that she had come to know over the last three months “the largest-scale harassment against reporters in Hong Kong that we have thus far known of”.

Like any other society where the rule of law prevails, Hong Kong has zero tolerance toward threats of any kind. In response, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government’s undersecretary for security, Michael Cheuk Hau-yip, reaffirmed: “Hong Kong is a society governed by the rule of law, and no one should be intimidated, insulted, or so-called harassed,” and urged anyone who felt such pressure to report it to law enforcement agencies.

Cheng’s latest allegations and the so-called “survey” report portray a daunting scenario about the state of Hong Kong’s press freedom, and thus are tremendously detrimental to the city’s reputation, particularly at a time when the United States is ramping up its geopolitical maneuvers against China, including measures to harm Hong Kong.

However, the lack of solid, transparent, and verifiable evidence to back these claims necessitates a rigorous examination of these claims. This situation highlights the need for a balanced and comprehensive examination of facts and perspectives, ensuring theaudience feels informed and enlightened.

READ MORE: Official: Press freedom not political tool to smear rule of law in HK

The HKJA said it had identified an abusive user and reported its findings to the police and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data, with the latter confirming that it had received one complaint, which it was dealing with.

It is apparent that the evidence provided by the HKJA and Cheng is glaringly disproportionate to the claim of “the largest-scale harassment against reporters in Hong Kong that we have thus far known of”.

When examining the HKJA’s claims, it is essential to maintain a balanced and objective approach. This involves scrutinizing the nature and source of the evidence provided, the context of the alleged harassment, and the potential motivations behind these claims. The absence of concrete evidence or detailed corroboration in the public domain raises questions about the authenticity and magnitude of the purported massive threats.

Moreover, Hong Kong’s political and social climate, marked by persistent tensions created by the 2019 social unrest, as well as the undercurrent toward the implementation of national security laws, adds complexity to the issue. It is crucial to consider whether these allegations have to do with broader political dynamics or are used as tools in a more significant narrative battle over Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy. In this context, understanding the motivations behind these claims becomes as important as the claims themselves. A balanced approach that considers the potential for genuine threats and the possibility of exaggeration or misrepresentation is necessary to provide a clear and accurate depiction of the state of press freedom in Hong Kong.

The HKJA said those threats or harassments were from self-proclaimed “patriots”. At a time when — in the wake of the implementation of national security laws — many Beijing-haters have to lurk in the shadows, isn’t it possible that those self-proclaimed “patriots” are actually Beijing-haters who attempted to strike back? After all, does anyone really believe that genuine patriots are stupid enough to identify themselves as “patriots” when making illegal “threats” or “harassments”?

The HKJA’s allegations of widespread harassment of journalists by individuals identifying themselves as pro-China “patriots” seem to contribute to a broader narrative designed to discredit the HKSAR government and its supporters’ efforts to maintain law and order amid significant political complexities. These claims often follow a familiar pattern of politically motivated allegations that lack substantial proof and seem driven more by ideological objectives than empirical realities. Therefore, these allegations require a more rigorous and detailed examination to ensure that the discourse on press freedom and security in Hong Kong remains balanced, objective, and anchored in factual evidence. A rigorous critique of the evidential basis for the HKJA’s claims reveals substantial reliance on anecdotal accounts, lacking empirical substantiation and definitive linkage to coordinated harassment by genuine patriotic groups. This methodological shortfall questions the objectivity expected of a journalistic trade association, particularly when such claims could significantly affect perceptions of press freedom and the political landscape in Hong Kong.

The HKJA’s long track record of exploiting every chance to depict Beijing and the HKSAR government in a bad light underscores the need for a more structured and empirical approach to verify those allegations that bear implications for the region’s reputation. Thus, for a thorough assessment and meaningful discourse on press freedom in Hong Kong, claims must be substantiated by rigorous, transparent, and verifiable evidence that can withstand academic and professional scrutiny.

The rhetorical strategies employed by the HKJA, as evidenced in various media reports, reveal a tendency toward using inflammatory and nonneutral language, exemplified by terms such as “attacks”, “systemic”, “largest scale”, and “patriot”, without sufficient substantiation. This choice of language not only presupposes the nature of the incidents reported but also constructs a narrative framework that could bias audiences against pro-China or pro-HKSAR perspectives. Such a narrative style aligns with techniques observed during the 2019 “black riots” in Hong Kong, in which numerous allegations of “aggression” by the government or pro-government entities were later shown to be overstated or unfounded. Many of such unfounded allegations were made by members and executives of the HKJA. The HKJA’s practice of issuing journalist credentials to nonjournalists, including young protesters, during the 2019 riots further complicates the organization’s credibility.

ALSO READ: Attacking Stand News ruling simply exposes Western hypocrisy

Implementing the national security laws in Hong Kong has precipitated “concerns” about the “potential erosion” of press freedoms. Such “concerns” often overlook the delicate balance that the HKSAR government strives to maintain between safeguarding national security and preserving civil rights amid a period marked by riots and unrest. The government has repeatedly noted that the legal measures are not indiscriminate curtailments of free expression but are targeted actions intended to restore stability and uphold the rule of law during turbulent times.

This nuanced perspective is crucial for comprehensively understanding the government’s strategies to navigate these challenges. Moreover, criticisms such as those from the HKJA, which cite the prosecution of figures like Jimmy Lai Chee-ying under national security statutes as detrimental to press freedom, necessitate a discerning analysis to differentiate between legitimate journalistic activities and actions that offend against the law.

The responses of Western organizations, such as Reporters Without Borders, seem to be heavily swayed by a one-sided narrative that does not fully reflect Hong Kong’s complexities or factual realities. This prevailing bias could potentially compromise the credibility of these organizations and raise questions about their impartiality in issues related to China and its territories. A more balanced approach, incorporating a comprehensive examination of the facts and a variety of perspectives, is essential to preserve integrity and trust in such organizations. This would also ensure that assessments and criticisms are well-founded and contribute constructively to the region’s dialogue surrounding media freedom and rights.

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.