Foreign governments criticize Hong Kong journalists’ convictions in sedition case

HONG KONG — THE convictions The statements by two Hong Kong journalists who ran a now-shuttered online news outlet have heightened concerns among media groups and foreign governments about press freedom in the city, although local officials say there are no restrictions when journalists stick to the facts.

Stand news Former editor-in-chief Chung Pui-kuen and former acting editor-in-chief Patrick Lam were found guilty of conspiring to publish and reproduce seditious publications, with the judge saying their outlet had become a tool for government defamation. sedition trial It was the first time Hong Kong had involved the media since the former British colony returned to Chinese rule in 1997.

Here are some reactions from governments and media groups:

US State Department spokesman Matthew Miller wrote on X that the convictions constituted a “direct attack on media freedom” and damaged the city’s international reputation for openness.

“We urge the authorities in Beijing and Hong Kong to restore and uphold the rights guaranteed by the Basic Law,” he said, referring to the mini-constitution adopted by China to govern Hong Kong after its handover to Britain in 1997 that aimed to preserve the territory’s capitalist system and way of life until 2047.

“Journalism is not a crime,” British Indo-Pacific Minister Catherine West wrote on X, adding that Chung and Lam were convicted “for doing their jobs.”

She urged Hong Kong authorities to “end politicised prosecutions of journalists and uphold press freedom”. & “freedoms of publication” as set out in the Basic Law.

The European Union said in a statement that the conviction is another sign of the shrinking space for press freedom, guaranteed by the Basic Law.

“This decision risks further hampering the pluralistic exchange of ideas and the free flow of information, two cornerstones of Hong Kong’s economic success,” he said.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry office in Hong Kong strongly opposed criticism from the United States, Britain and the European Union in a statement, saying it denigrated right and wrong. It said Stand News was a political organization and Western politicians had long had double standards on the issue of press freedom.

“While turning a blind eye to their own country’s record of media repression, they repeatedly use ‘press freedom’ as a political tool to make excuses for anti-China groups destabilizing Hong Kong,” he said.

Hong Kong Chief Secretary Eric Chan said the government respects freedom of the press, which is guaranteed by law. He added that if journalists rely on facts, no restrictions will be placed on that freedom.

“Criticizing the government is not something that is forbidden,” he said.

Reporters Without Borders condemned the verdict, saying it set a “dangerous precedent” and dealt a further blow to press freedom, which was already being crushed in the city.

Cedric Alviani, director of the Asia-Pacific office of the Global Media Observatory, called the court decision “appalling.” “From now on, anyone reporting facts that do not match the official version of the authorities could be convicted of sedition,” he said.

The Hong Kong Journalists Association, a leading media trade group in the city, said the case against Stand News illustrated the decline of press freedom in the city.

“The damage done to the city’s press and a media company is irreversible, long before the verdict is delivered today,” he said.

Sarah Brooks, Amnesty International China director, said the verdict was “another nail in the coffin” of press freedom in the city.

“The court’s ruling that 11 articles on the Stand News website were ‘seditious’ will invariably force journalists working in Hong Kong to think twice about what they write and will further reinforce a climate of fear in the city, fuelled by a succession of repressive national security laws,” she said.

Brooks was referring to Beijing’s 2020 national security law and a new security law enacted in March.