The expulsion of the Financial Times’ (FT) Asia editor from Hong Kong is yet another sign that the territory is closing itself off from the rest of the world.
Since the handover of Hong Kong from the UK to the People’s Republic of China in 1997, the question has been: Will the newly acquired territory change the mainland or will Hong Kong become just another Chinese city?
Events in recent years show that Beijing is increasingly unwilling to tolerate resistance to Chinese Communist Party rule within its borders.
To ensure that its power remains unchallenged, Beijing has set about reversing the hard-won freedoms that have been enjoyed by Hong Kongers for many decades. It has meant taking from Hong Kong what made it great in the first place — its openness.
Throughout most of its time under British rule, Hong Kong was a global city; a great trading city that bridged Europe and Asia, and a hub for business activity and cultural exchange.
Underpinning its propulsion toward economic prosperity were certain freedoms and the rule of law.
The territory should not just be viewed through a commercial lens.
It also has a history of being a place for migrants and refugees, most notably from Maoist China, but also from South and Southeast Asia.
It was also, as Antony Dapiran’s book City of Protest reminds us, a place of political dissent. All of which made Hong Kong an all the more richer place to work and live.
This uplifting spirit of dissent was projected across the world in late 2014, when thousands of protesters took to the streets demanding genuine democracy.
Yet, since the end of the “Umbrella movement,” people across the globe have seen a much bleaker picture coming out of Hong Kong.
In December last year, a former leader of Britain’s Liberal Democratic Party, Paddy Ashdown, returned from Hong Kong and described it to an audience in the UK parliament as “losing its self-confidence.”
More recently, with the territory’s decision to deny the FT’s Victor Mallet a visa, talk of “the death of Hong Kong” has been renewed.
Following the visa announcement, Hong Kong Free Press columnist Evan Fowler wrote: “Let there now be no shadow of doubt. Any pretence that Hong Kong has not changed fundamentally, and that the city’s core values, way of life and institutions remain intact and functioning can now be dropped.”
Fowler would know this all too well. Like other Hong Kong-based journalists, his family has received threatening letters as a result of his writings and political activity. This, alongside the abduction of the Causeway Bay bookstore owners and publishers between October and December 2015, has produced a considerable chilling effect within the territory.
When intimidation no longer works, the Hong Kong authorities, no doubt with the backing of Beijing, have resorted to banning ideologically unwelcome visitors through the immigration system. This includes denying entry to Taiwanese academics Wu Rwei-ren (吳睿人) and Wu Jieh-min (吳介民).
Mallet is the latest victim of this vindictive tactic. His crime was, as vice president of the Foreign Correspondents’ Club, to ignore China’s pressure to cancel an event the club hosted, featuring young independence activist Andy Chan (陳浩天).
Now the authorities, without explanation, have denied Mallet a visa so that he can no longer operate as a journalist in the territory he has lived in for several years.
Business leaders and global media outlets have raised concerns about the decision, saying it could damage Hong Kong’s reputation and competitiveness on the world stage. This includes a statement from the American Chamber of Commerce, which stressed the importance of a free press for conducting business and trade.
The British Foreign Office also responded by criticizing the “unprecedented” attack on the freedom of speech, which it concluded, in absence of any other explanation, could only be politically motivated.
Meanwhile, the British foreign secretary called for the decision to be reversed.
If Mallet’s visa is not renewed, the chilling effect will only deepen in Hong Kong and journalist there will have to consider, more than ever, the need to self-censor.
Worse still those seeking to pursue journalistic or academic pursuits might leave the territory altogether, that is if they even decide to come in the first place.
In April last year, the international media watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RWB) chose Taipei over Hong Kong as the location for its first Asia office, citing concerns over the threat China poses to press freedom.
This was somewhat unsurprising, as since 2002, Hong Kong has plummeted in RWB’s global press freedom rankings, while Taiwan has taken the opposite trajectory.
The expulsion of Mallet makes RWB’s decision to keep out of Hong Kong seem all the more prudent.
A once great global territory is having its image tattered by Beijing officials, and their counterparts in Hong Kong, who are determined to undermine the principles of freedom of speech and association which have made Hong Kong what it is.
What this means for other journalists, academics and political activists is unknown — will they be forced out, denied entry or simply decide to go elsewhere?
What is clear is that Hong Kong would be all the poorer without them.
Gray Sergeant is a postgraduate student in Chinese politics at the University of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies. He also works in human rights advocacy.
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
After the coup in Burma in 2021, the country’s decades-long armed conflict escalated into a full-scale war. On one side was the Burmese army; large, well-equipped, and funded by China, supported with weapons, including airplanes and helicopters from China and Russia. On the other side were the pro-democracy forces, composed of countless small ethnic resistance armies. The military junta cut off electricity, phone and cell service, and the Internet in most of the country, leaving resistance forces isolated from the outside world and making it difficult for the various armies to coordinate with one another. Despite being severely outnumbered and
RSS