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.
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS