More than three months after the implementation of the Hong Kong version of the National Security Law enacted by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of China, the Hong Kong police suddenly announced in late September revised the definition of media representatives under the Police General Orders, no longer recognized the Hong Kong Journalists Association and the Photojournalists Association issued press cards, causing concern that the freedom of the press in Hong Kong is further narrowed.
According to a recent public opinion survey, 62% of the respondents oppose the police’s revision of the definition of media, and scholars analyzed the survey to reflect the public’s dissatisfaction with the relevant policy, worrying about the restriction of online media and freelance journalists’ interview space.
Some freelance journalists said that after the implementation of the National Security Law, there is self-censorship, will avoid some of the so-called “red line”, pessimistic about the future of journalism.
The Hong Kong Police sent a letter to four media associations on September 22, without consulting the industry, to amend the definition of “media representative” under the Police General Orders, to remove the Hong Kong Press Photographers Association and the Hong Kong Journalists Association from the list of “media representatives”, no longer recognize the press cards issued by the two unions, only the local media registered in the Hong Kong Government Information Services news release system and internationally recognized and well-known non-local media.
Multiple media unions oppose changes to the Police General Orders
Other unaccredited media, including online media, freelance journalists, and student journalists, who work within the cordoned off area, may be considered to have violated the “restriction order” restricting public gatherings during the neo-coronary pneumonia epidemic, or to have participated in illegal gatherings, and may even be charged with serious crimes such as participating in a “riot”.
The implementation of the Hong Kong version of the National Security Law, enacted by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPC) for more than three months, coupled with the unilateral amendment of the definition of “media representative” under the Police General Orders, has raised concerns that press freedom in Hong Kong has been further curtailed.
The Hong Kong Journalists Association, the Hong Kong Press Photographers Association, the Independent Reviewers Association and other representatives of the eight media unions held a joint press conference in late September to protest the police forcibly revised the definition of “media representative”, not ruling out the filing of a judicial review, through legal means to deal with this incident.
Poll: 62% opposed to the police changing the definition of media representatives
The Hong Kong Institute for Public Opinion Research (HKIPR), formerly known as the Public Opinion Programme (POP) at the University of Hong Kong, held a press conference on Tuesday (October 6) to announce the results of an online survey conducted between 5:00 p.m. on September 30 and 3:00 p.m. on October 5, which successfully interviewed 11,423 citizens aged 12 and above about their views on the police’s proposal to change the definition of “media representative”.
The survey results showed that 62% of the respondents were against the police changing the definition of “media representative”, of which 58% were “very much against” and 36% were in support. In terms of political affiliation, 97% of the 9,629 self-proclaimed “democratic” supporters opposed the police’s action, while 65% of the 952 self-proclaimed “non-democratic” supporters supported it and 31% opposed it.
Scholars say citizens are concerned about journalists’ difficulties in obtaining information.
The former assistant professor of journalism at the School of Communication of Hong Kong Baptist University, Anthony To, said at the press conference that the survey reflects the public’s dissatisfaction with the relevant policies, and he cited other surveys on press freedom, and there are three main reasons for the public’s concern.
In fact, there are three major reasons, one of which is that they realize that journalists have difficulties in obtaining the required information and the lack of legal protection, which is exactly the current problem. The matter itself, because there is not too much proclamation, all the facts come.”
He believes that there is a chance that the incident will continue to fester, and that citizen dissatisfaction may rise, and that the dissatisfaction of media workers will be higher than that of the general public.
Police and media relations may be further aggravated
Du Yew Ming also said that over the past year more than anti-sending campaign, journalists interviewed first-hand experience reflects that the police “approved” of the media is not equal to the exemption of the problem, he expects that the relationship between the police and the media may be further aggravated.
Du Yaoming said: “Plus the past year, those (journalists) first-hand experience, or from January this year to now, you look at how many complaints the Association, and how many statements it issued, know how serious that is, even when you are a real journalist, to deal with you in the way of real police, does not mean that you are recognized as a journalist qualifications, on the The police should not be optimistic about the future of the police, and should not think that it will be possible to overcome those discontents.
Worried that other government departments will follow the example of the police’s approach to the press.
In response to a question from the Voice of America (VOA) about the impact of the National Security Law (NSL) on Hong Kong’s press freedom after three months of implementation and the unilateral amendment of the definition of “media representative” under the Police General Orders (PGO), Mr. To said that he believes the police are using a “hardline” approach, and he is worried that other government departments will follow the example of the police on the press.
In the past year, the police have been dealing with journalists, and if they can continue to do so, they will be able to do so. There is no guarantee that the entire SAR government will become an imitation of the police’s approach to journalists and the press, that is, it (the police) has become mainstream, until now this new policy that even the SAR government’s press office does not dare to endorse.”
If other government departments follow the police’s example and unilaterally define the qualifications of media and journalists, he worries that this will restrict the space available to online media and freelance journalists,” To said.
This greatly restricts the development of online media, for example, and the space for freelance journalists can be stifled at any time. It also restricts the power of the two journalists’ associations to identify who is a journalist and who is not, and this is a way to take away their power. In the long run, we all don’t want this political power to replace all the professional power, and some very respectable columnists say that if this policy is pushed further, all other professions will be trampled upon except journalists. The time when I (the authorities) say who is a lawyer and who is not a lawyer, who is an accountant and who is not, this is a very worrying thing.”
It’s impossible for the government to screen journalists who monitor the government’s qualifications
He described the pro-establishment camp as “the emperor is not anxious, the eunuch is anxious”, and as a “pioneer” to test the reaction of public opinion. He believes that the press cannot accept this approach, especially since the government should be monitored by the fourth estate of the media, which has a conflict of interest and makes it impossible to screen who is qualified to monitor the government.
Du Yaoming said: “This certification system actually represents the government’s attempt to monopolize the so-called licensing rights. It is impossible, because it has a conflict of interest, as an official, as a government structure, it is subject to the monitoring of the fourth power, that is, the press, what reason can it have to select the person who monitors it? I’m not saying that this government is a drug dealer, meaning that you are subject to monitoring people, can not, can not be to select those who monitor you, if you can, is not the police, is (Police Commissioner) Deng Bingqiang to select who to do anti-corruption Commissioner it?
Freelance journalist says police 10-1 lenient attitude toward media
Hong Kong freelance journalist Maggie Cheng was interviewed by the Voice of America and said that after the police unilaterally changed the definition of “media representative” under the Police General Orders, 62% of the public opposed the policy, and she believes that the figures reflect the public’s views.
She went to Causeway Bay for an interview and was surrounded by police officers pulling a cordon. However, perhaps because there were many reporters present that day, the Internet media, student journalists became the subject of interviews, the attitude of the police on that day may not be able to serve as a standard.
The company’s main business is to provide a wide range of products and services to the public. Of course I think once can not be accurate, because the general rule has just been amended for the first time on the spot, I believe it may be more lenient, and because there are a lot of reporters on the spot are, that is, this time the state is a lot of reporters to interview some reporters, some reporters to interview some so-called with the CPPCC press card, or some student media reporters, so more cameras are filming, I think their practice is also more lenient. “
Self-censorship after the implementation of the National Security Act
The first thing that you need to do is to get your own copy of the article, and you’ll be able to get it from the website.
The first thing you need to do is to get your own copy of the book, and then you’ll be able to get your own copy of the book, which you’ll be able to use to get your own copy of the book. In fact, there will be a ‘silencing’ effect, even if you say this time ‘redefine’ what a journalist is, in fact it is trying to, will make many people, that is, may be freelance journalists (to the scene interview) risky, whether you are interviewing or writing above, in fact there must be a kind of censorship appeared. “
She believes that journalists should not be defined by the police as long as they are interviewed in a legal manner, and she believes that both freelance and student journalists should continue to enjoy the right to interview. However, after the implementation of the National Security Law, there will be self-censorship on certain words or subjects.
The company’s main business is to provide a wide range of products and services to its customers. It’s not written, it’s real, it’s happened to me myself.”
Pessimistic about the future of journalism
The first thing that you need to do is to make sure that you have a good understanding of what you are doing.
The first thing you need to do is to get a good idea of what you’re looking for in a company, and you’ll be able to get a good idea of what you’re looking for. In fact, many professions are actually very pessimistic, even as a Hong Kong person himself is very pessimistic, because a society that kind of regression of the rule of law, that kind of going downhill, in fact, the last victim is every person in society, every profession.”
It’s not just a matter of time, but it’s also a matter of time before we get to the point where we have to make a decision about what to do.
It’s hard to plan too far ahead as a Hong Kong person right now,” Mei-Zi Cheng said. Yes, that step now is really only one step, there is no telling what tomorrow will bring.”
The Journalists Association survey 98% opposed to a Hong Kong version of the national security law
At the end of May, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPC) announced the enactment of the Hong Kong version of the National Security Law, which mainly targets four types of acts, including subversion of Chinese state power, secession of China, terrorist activities, and intervention by external forces, completely bypassing the local legislative process in Hong Kong, and was directly introduced into Hong Kong for implementation through Annex III of the Basic Law late at night on June 30.
The Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA) conducted an online questionnaire survey in mid-June and sent it to 535 official members to collect their opinions on the National Security Law. According to the survey, 87% of the respondents believe that the Hong Kong version of the National Security Law will seriously affect the freedom of the press, and only one respondent believes that it will not affect the freedom of the press; 92% of the respondents are worried about the threat to their personal safety after the legislation.
The survey also shows that 98% of respondents oppose the Hong Kong version of the National Security Law, believing that the freedom of the press will be worsened and self-censorship of the media will be worsened.
Recent Comments