Self-Censorship Suspends Press Awards

The FCC decided at the last minute to suspend the HRPA

There is a lot of fury and disappointment over the Foreign Correspondents' Club in Hong Kong for suspending its Human Rights Press Freedom Awards that would have been held on May 3, Press Freedom Day, at the last minute. 

The club's president Keith Richburg, said the decision was made after the board had a lengthy discussion about it on Saturday.

"Over the last two years, journalists in Hong Kong have been operating under new 'red lines' on what is and is not permissible, but there remain significant areas of uncertainty and we do not wish unintentionally to violate the law," he said.

Richburg said suspending awards was unusual

Richburg described the suspension as an unusual step to take just weeks before the winners were to be announced on May 3, acknowledging that it is likely deeply disappointing to the candidates, the judges and everyone else who took part.

He added suspending the awards was a very tough decision to reach, and that it "in now way reflects the FCC Board's view of the content of any of the entries or the work of the independent judges."

Nevertheless, Richburg said the FCC will continue to promote press freedom in Hong Kong, though "recent developments" -- without citing which -- might require changes to the club's approach.

In response, some of the FCC's press freedom committee members resigned, including journalists Shibani Mahtani, Timothy McLaughlin, and Mary Hui. Five other committee members have also reportedly resigned.

"As a former winner and judge of the HRPA, I feel nothing but the deepest regret and do not stand by this decision," said Mahtani, who is the SouthEast Asia and Hong Kong bureau chief for the Washington Post.

Many of the events and talks are held here

"It is an award that meant something not only to Hong Kong, but journalists across Asia who covered some of the most consequential developments in the region last year," she said.

"It is emblematic too of the self-censorship many institutions feel forced to subject themselves to in today's Hong Kong, whether with or without their merits."

It would have been the club's 26th year in handing out awards, and many of them would have been won by Stand News, a pro-democracy news outlet that shuttered late last year.

What is also interesting to note is that the HRPA are traditionally co-hosted by Amnesty International and the Hong Kong Journalists' Association. Amnesty has left Hong Kong, while the HKJA is meeting to discuss whether it should disband or not.

These are the times we live in, but as the Foreign Correspondents' Club, it has an obligation to stand up for press freedom and other human rights, and yet it has cowered from this mandate, choosing instead to stay silent probably in the hopes of being able to renew the lease on the property on Ice House Street.

Mahtani resigned in protest

What is the club good for these days? They hold a few guest speaker talks, but it is mainly run by non-journalists now, and serves cheap drinks (and good curries I heard).

The least the club could do is continue to speak out about press freedom when people like Apple Daily founder Jimmy Lai Chee-ying is in jail along with his senior editors, editors at Stand News are languishing in jail, and most recently journalist Allan Au who was arrested two weeks ago.

But it seems the club is more concerned about preserving itself than taking advantage of its unique position and speaking out on behalf of local journalists, as well as the HKJA, where its leaders, currently Ronson Chan, and previously Chris Yeung, risked its position to speak out as much as possible.

Many feel the FCC chickened out and has lost all credibility with the journalism community in Hong Kong -- or what's left of it.

It's no wonder that local journalists never had an interest in joining this club in the first place, which hardly represented them.

Lam says press freedom is protected in Basic Law

Ironically today Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor pronounced that press freedom, which is enshrined in the Basic Law, has been safeguarded and upheld in the SAR since the handover, meaning almost 25 years.

When asked about the FCC suspending its HRPA and political scientist Chung Kim-wah fleeing to the UK, Lam claimed they were isolated incidents.

"So I would say that the two examples you have given are those isolated incidents, which might have given people that impression, especially people who tended to misunderstand the constitutional safeguards for press freedom, and that is one has to observe the law in exercising your freedom," she said.

But journalists are observing the law, and yet they are caught in the crossfire, Mrs Lam... for whatever charges the national security police wish to prosecute them... surely that is the erosion of press freedom...

No Choice But to Flee

 

Michael Smith (L) and Bill Birtles (R) when they departed Shanghai

This morning I woke up to the shocking news that two Australian journalists had to flee China after the Chinese government claimed they were involved in "a case", which was later revealed to be detained Australian-Chinese TV anchor Cheng Lei.

Bill Birtles of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and China correspondent Michael Smith of The Australian Financial Review are back in Sydney (in hotel quarantine) and trying to process what happened to them in the last few days.

They are upset to have left China so abruptly, unable to properly say good-bye to friends and colleagues, or finish ticking off their bucket list of places to see and things to do in the Middle Kingdom.

Birtles stayed at the Australian Embassy in Beijing

But earlier both were warned by Australian diplomats they should leave China, following the escalating tensions between the two countries. Things probably ratcheted up several notches following the detention of CGTN anchor Cheng Lei last month.

So they both packed their bags in anticipation of leaving this Thursday.

Then last Wednesday evening, while Birtles was holding a farewell gathering at his Beijing apartment, seven Chinese officers showed up at his door at midnight including a translator, telling him he was involved in a case and that he could not leave China. But at the same time, could he leave them his number so they could contact him in the afternoon to arrange a time to discuss this "case"?

At the same time in Shanghai, Smith got a knock on the door too, and was awoken from his sleep. After the encounter with the officers, he found it hard to go back to sleep.

The next day both sought advice from the Australian consulates in both cities, and they advised them to stay in the diplomatic compound for their safety. Luckily their stuff had been packed and consular staff picked up their luggage for them.

Smith wondered if his fate would be like Julian Assange

Then they were holed up in the consulates for five days as negotiations began between Australia and China to allow to the two journalists to leave without incident. At one point Smith wondered if his fate would be similar to Julian Assange's, being holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy for years.

But luckily an agreement came together in days that they could leave, though there was one catch -- they had to be questioned about the Cheng Lei case.

In separate hotel rooms in the Kerry Hotel in Shanghai, Smith and Birtles were questioned for an hour, and Birtles says the questions were about which stories he had done, how well he knew Cheng Lei (only met once), and even asking if he covered Hong Kong's national security law.

Afterwards, they were free to go. They were escorted to the airport gate by a diplomat and then left China, wondering what had just happened.

CGTN anchor Cheng Lei was suddenly detained last month

What happened was Beijing's bizarre way of kicking out journalists. While Birtles and Smith were going to leave anyway, China wanted them to depart the country on its terms.

This was not about Cheng Lei, but about a tit-for-tat between Australia and China, and the two journalists were caught in the middle. Australia has called for an investigation for the origins of the coronavirus, while Beijing adamantly refuses to delve into it.

Birtles wonders if he stayed in China would he face further harassment or none at all? It's quite possible the Chinese would have made it practically impossible for him to continue doing his job there and he would have to leave eventually.

Now both journalists will have to figure out how to continue to report on China from Australia, and wonder if and when they will ever get to go back.

Forcing the Issue

American VP Joe Biden had tough words for Chinese President Xi Jinping

Earlier this week UK Prime Minister David Cameron was meek and compliant on his trip to China. He thought the submissive tactic would win him brownie points, but instead he was ridiculed for kowtowing to Beijing.

Then a few days later came American Vice-President Joe Biden who voiced his displeasure of the prospect of 24 journalists working for Bloomberg and the New York Times not having their China visas renewed in the next few weeks and may have to leave the country. That could mean the end of their on-the-ground reporting in China.

In a speech to an American business group (where he was preaching to the converted), Biden said, "Innovation thrives where people breathe freely, speak freely and are able to challenge orthodoxy, where newspapers can report the truth without fear of consequences."

He also encouraged young Chinese visiting the US to "challenge the government, challenge your teachers, challenge religious leaders".

For the deputy leader of the most powerful nation on earth to make these statements shows confidence despite the US's shortcomings.

At a meeting on Thursday with Beijing-based journalists for Bloomberg and the New York Times, Biden said he warned Chinese leaders over dinner that there would be serious consequences, especially from Congress if China forced out the journalists.

However, he added that Chinese President Xi Jinping appeared unmoved, saying the authorities would treat them according to Chinese law. But right now those processing their visa renewals are not following Chinese law...

It's quite obvious this latest development is retaliation against the two news outlets for digging through public records to piece together what they believe are pretty accurate financial pictures of both then Premier Wen Jiabao's and Xi's families.

Their series of stories were considered award-winning pieces of journalism outside of China, but not for Beijing, who considers delving into the private lives of its senior leaders as taboo.

After Bloomberg's explosive story about Xi's family seemingly benefiting from his political position, state-owned enterprises in the financial industry were instructed not to purchase Bloomberg terminals for the latest financial information.

This hit the company hard, its sales plummeted and have not recovered at all. One can imagine the Chinese firms also losing out on this precious timely financial information as well.

Bloomberg's chief editor Matthew Winkler is also currently caught in a tough situation, accused of not publishing another investigative piece for fear of the China reporters being expelled. He also unfortunately compared the Chinese Communist Party to the Nazis...

The fallout from this ongoing scandal is that one of Bloomberg's most seasoned China journalists Mike Forsythe has left the company.

Why is this all so important?

We, the west need people on the ground to tell us what is really going on in China. Even being in Hong Kong is not enough to feel the subtle shifts that happen politically, economically and socially.

By having this information we can make better business and political decisions; it also shapes our perception of the country by having these China journalists documenting every development there.

So if two dozen reporters are really forced to leave China by the end of the year, that's 24 less experts helping us discern what is really going on in the Middle Kingdom. And that's where miscommunication and misperceptions begin.

Beijing's seemingly retaliatory moves are not doing it any favours either. But it seems to think soft power is not the way to go when it comes to controlling foreign media's coverage of China.