HKCT Review 2020: Media

HKCT Review 2020: Media

Hong Kong’s media freedom suffered serious blows during 2020, but much critical reporting continues, as shown by HKCT’s translations of coverage throughout the year. RTHK, the public broadcaster, has faced substantial government pressure to bring its programming into line with the government’s views. The Headliner, a popular satire programme, will go. Jessie Ting, a civil servant close to Carrie Lam, will head a ‘governance review’. Meanwhile, 3 senior executives will leave RTHK, and Nabela Qoser, a popular reporter, continues in her probationary period long after it was due to end.

The pattern has been repeated elsewhere. At Cable News in August and now News in June, new executives who previously worked at Television Broadcasts (TVB) were parachuted in. TVB is accused of being excessively deferential to the government and Beijing. Personnel changes at Cable News continued.  After an initial round of lay-offs supposedly on financial grounds, including the firing of the whole News Lancet investigative team, many other journalists resigned in solidarity in December. They include a third of the staff of the finance desk, the whole reporting staff of the China desk, and 5 senior executives including 2 assistant news controllers. No similar changes have occurred at now News, but Bill Chan, the new head of now News, ordered a report about the Communist Party membership of a Pro-Vice-Chancellor appointee at HKU deleted.

Reporters who do not face pressure from management instead confront obstacles from the government. Bao Choy, an RTHK producer who contributed to an earlier extensive report on the 21 July Yuen Long attack, was arrested in November because he conducted a vehicle search on a government database. The Buildings Department denied Cable News journalists access to building plans after a fire killed eight in Yau Ma Tei.

Perhaps the biggest shock of the year, however, was the search of Apple Daily. Large numbers of police stormed its offices and even seized journalistic material. It took several months before Apple Daily obtained a High Court order to have the documents returned. Apple Daily’s troubles did not end there. Jimmy Lai, its owner, was entangled in legal troubles in December and denied bail. He was transferred to court at one point in chains.

Also worth noting is that the Chief Executive and her bureaux secretaries receive far more interviews from Mainland media, including CCTV, Global Times, Shenzhen TV and so on. It seems this has become the trend to avoid appearing in Hong Kong media and hence less palatable questions.

Police treatment of journalists

The Privacy Commissioner opened a case in late December after a police officer revealed the HKID of a journalist on a live stream. The HKJA said that his actions may have breached the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance, and demanded an investigation (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2531137923770258). The Commissioner eventually found against the police officer (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2835822119968502).

Fewer protests and clashes took place this year, but the police still behaved violently towards journalists when the opportunity arose. In May, the police pepper-sprayed clearly identified reporters in Sha Tin (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2648939831990066). Media associations including the HKJA met the Commissioner of Police later to complain about the incident, and Tang apologised on his own behalf (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2655189974698385). In August, a Japanese reporter was dragged by the police within a police cordon, and several were pepper-sprayed. The Japanese journalist was released once he was allowed to show his details (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2721930324691016). It was later found that he wasn’t covering anything at that point. The police also attacked a Cable News reporter in March but insisted it was accidental (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2595091974041519).

RTHK under threat?

In June, Headliner, an RTHK political satire show, said goodbye after the last episode of the season (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2678867765663939). A former host of the show said that even if it were to resume it would be an empty shell amidst government interference (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2654127591471290). The end of the programme followed complaints about a programme satirising the police, which was eventually upheld by the Communications Authority. The RTHK Programme Staff Union and HKJA immediately announced an application for judicial review (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2728773524006696). In February, RTHK responded to complaints by pointing out that Headliner was obviously satirical and no reasonable person would have considered it a current affairs programme (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2584501995100517) but it apologised after the ruling (see link before).

Nabela Qoser, Assistant Programme Officer at RTHK, became notable locally for her aggressive questioning of senior officials at press conferences. Her probationary period was initially scheduled to end in October, but was extended by 120 days in late September. In December, the Ombudsman rejected a complaint against the extension launched by the former chair of the RTHK Programme Staff Union, Shum Yi-lan (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2832074360343278). Some sources said that the government had pressured RTHK in Qoser’s case (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2762871967263518). An investigation prompted by a complaint against her was also reopened in September (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2763280400556008). In a possible sign of RTHK management’s view of the matter, Fung Kin-yip, Deputy Director of Broadcasting, ordered 3,000 complaints against Qoser printed, but the Corporate Communications and Standards Unit did nothing about letters of appreciation (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2810926635791384). The RTHK said that the treatment of Qoser could lead to a chilling effect and that the actions taken against her were highly unusual (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2763393710544677). At a meeting of RTHK staff, Fung appeared to compare the investigation to a criminal case, but refused to apologise, so Leung Ka-wing, Director of Broadcasting, apologised on his behalf. At least 59,000 people signed a petition in support of Qoser (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2775651425985572).

The pro-Beijing camp’s opposition to RTHK has continued. In January, Politihk Social Strategic, a pro-Beijing group, held 2 protests outside RTHK. They made various demands, including the inclusion of pro-Beijing content and the firing of Nabela Qoser and Chan Miu-ling (RTHK journalists) (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2552229758327741, https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2553101374907246).

Another RTHK programme, Pentaprism II, also came under attack. In April, the Communications Authority held that a guest host, Sam Choi Chun-wai, made inaccurate and unfair comments about the police. The programme aired in November last year during some of the worst clashes of the anti-ELAB protests at PolyU and CUHK (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2631077897109593). Chris Tang, the police commissioner, also complained to Education University, where Choi was a lecturer. Tang said that the remarks constituted ‘hate speech’ (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2635754596641923).

In June, Ming Pao reported that 3 senior RTHK executives would leave within the next year. The RTHK Programme Staff Union said that RTHK veteran Kirindi Chan Man-kuen was operating under substantial pressure from external forces, whilst some sources praised her for defending editorial independence (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2672678749616174). It also urged the government not to impose former civil servants on RTHK (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2672827929601256).

RTHK also faces a threat from a review by the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau, under which it operates. Jessie Ting who previously worked in the Chief Executive’s Office is to lead the review (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2692446874306028).

Hong Kong Connection’s episode on the 21 July triad attack at Yuen Long station was praised by Leung Ka-wing, Director of Broadcasting, as good enough to be used as exemplary material in journalism school. He made these remarks in response to inquiries from the Chairman of the Board of Advisors of RTHK, Eugene Chan Kin-keung. Chan said that Junius Ho had complained about how he had been reported on (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2769060549977993). It is common practice for journalists to use public databases, i.e. checking the register from the government to verify information. Bao Choy, an RTHK producer, was arrested for making a false statement, after she used a publicly available government database to make a vehicle registration search (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2796312300586151). Media groups demanded that the charges should be dropped (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2807524582798256). RTHK said that they would try to help, but some sources mentioned difficulties since Choy was a self-employed contractor (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2796358557248192). Amen Ng, then head of RTHK Corporate Communications and Standards, said that they would provide assistance if necessary. Director Leung said that he was worried about a chilling effect and that the arrest of a journalist for doing her job was highly unusual (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2795721067311941). Eugene Chan, however, said in an interview with Elizabeth Quat of the pro-Beijing DAB that the incident was like running a red light, and had nothing to do with press freedom (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2819984894885558).

Media muzzled?

Cable News was renowned for its investigatory coverage of China and Hong Kong. In June it emerged that William Fung, who oversaw Chinese news, had ordered the airing time of a programme about the Tian'anmen Square massacre to be changed. A major personnel change took place in August. William Fung became a consultant, whilst several new executives were appointed: Edna Tse as Deputy General Manager of Chinese news (from HKIBC, the channel's English channel), and Oscar Lee and Anderson Chan as news controllers (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2718346681716047). Hui Fong-fai also was parachuted in from TVB to Cable News (see https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2732887980261917). About 2 weeks later, 3 veterans of the Engineering Department were fired. Many employees from different departments demanded their reinstatement (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2731173477100034).

At the start of December, about 40 employees were sacked suddenly. This included the entirety of the News Lancet team, renowned for its investigative reporting. Many journalists were sceptical of the new management of Cable News, and decided to resign en masse. Bruce Lui, a senior lecturer at Baptist University, suggested that pressure from Beijing could have caused the changes (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2820667304817317). 5 senior editors including the assistant news controller resigned. Taking into account lay-offs nearly a third of the finance desk left the company (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2821557884728259). The whole China desk and the head of the Hong Kong desk also resigned (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2820053588212022).

The management of Cable News issued an apology the next day for their ‘handling’ of the situation in an attempt to retain people. They promised no change in editorial policy, no lay-offs or pay cuts for 2 years, and promotions for those who remained, as well as better communication. Management said generally that the company needed to restructure to ensure its continued viability (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2821534181397296). HKCT learnt that some of the journalists sacked or resigned may go to another media collectively, but we have not been able to verify such source yet.

Cheng Sze-sze, a former journalist at Cable News, said that she had remained despite offers of a much higher salary elsewhere. In the end, her colleague Yeung Leung-kit from News Lancet was photographed carrying a cardboard box leaving with his personal belongings. The News Lancet team had 8 members at its peak, but only Yeung and reporters with just half a year’s experience remained by the end (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2823795817837799).

Around the same time, the Buildings Department refused to allow Cable TV reporters to see the building plans of some flats in Yau Ma Tei. A fire had previously killed eight people there. The Buildings Department maintains that the plans are open to the public, but Cable TV, for unknown reasons, was unable to access the documents. The HKJA said that access to the documents was clearly in the public interest. Meanwhile, the Buildings Department said it had no information as to the number of applications to inspect documents, or how many were rejected (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2817601108457270).

In June, Bill Chan was appointed to lead now News. Chan previously worked for TVB, which has been accused of pro-government bias. Queenie Wu Yi-tyng, also formerly at TVB, will move to now News. It was also rumoured that Politico 政情, a current affairs "gossip" programme, might be suspended (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2681437115407004). Eventually, it was not suspended. In August, some staff planned to wear black in response to the arrest of Lam Cheuk-ting for rioting on 21 July. Lam livestreamed the attack by pro-Beijing triads at Yuen Long station and was himself injured. Chan, however, compared this to a ‘colour revolution’ and ordered staff not wear black (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2735791693304879). Later, in October, Chan ordered the removal of a report about the party membership of an academic to be appointed Pro-Vice-Chancellor at Hong Kong University (see education section for more details). He said that it was ‘inappropriate’—quite why was unclear, because he hung up immediately after being asked (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2786976034853111). now News later was rumoured to have attempted to change one of the hosts of an interview programme to Starry Lee, DAB chairman. After complaints from the pro-Beijing camp and a threat by the mother of the victim of the Taiwanese murder that ostensibly led to the extradition amendment bill, the attempt was put on the backburner (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2772922572925124).

After the enactment of the National Security Law, the police searched Apple Daily’s offices in August (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2721044358112946). The police only allowed media outlets they considered friendly to observe the search. They claimed that they had already made sure not to search certain departments, but others reported that some working in the editorial department were ordered to leave their seats even though they were working (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2720714608145921). HKJA denounced the raid and said it trampled on freedom of the press. When an executive complained that the police were searching reporters’ documents, the police threatened to arrest him (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2720727744811274). The pan-democratic camp also strongly condemned the search (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2720802578137124). Apple Daily approached the High Court over the seizure of some journalistic materials (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2781743945376320). It was later reported that Justice Wilson Chan had ordered their return. In response, many convenience stores and newsstands ordered hundreds of thousands of copies, and circulation rose from 72,000 to 350,000 (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/photos/a.1489251731292221/2721441028073279/).

In November, a student journalist at the Hong Kong Baptist University Students’ Union Editorial Board was arrested for obstructing police at a protest in May (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2796606690556712). Another journalist from Ben Yu Entertainment (娛賓) was also arrested on similar charges in May (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2801261666757881).

It emerged in November that Kung Kao Po, Hong Kong’s Roman Catholic newspaper, had censored an article criticising the police. The Justice and Peace Commission said on social media that the editor of Kung Kao Po had cut various sections of an article about the police. The editor of Kung Kao Po replied that it was to ensure that the article focused on the value of life (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2817485451802169).

Media regulation

In March, the Foreign Correspondents’ Club wrote to the Chief Executive to ask whether bans on US outlets in retaliation for similar measures taken in the US would extend to Hong Kong after unclear answers from her to a previous letter (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2603772763173440). They wrote again in June to express concern that the National Security Law would curtail journalistic freedom (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2684545348429514).

In May it emerged that the police were considering a 2-tier system for reporters, by which staff of citizen and student media would not be treated as journalists. The HKJA said that everyone has the right to cover news, and that this right was recognised in human rights law (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2659142904303092).

In July, John Lee, Secretary for Security, said that planning was underway to punish ‘fake reporters’ and regulate the media. The HKJA slammed the proposals and said that they were similar to practice on the Mainland (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2711710559046326).

Despite this concern for identifying ‘fake reporters’, the police refused to investigate HKJA allegations from May that a social media post incited others to forge press cards. They cited a lack of evidence, but this did not satisfy the HKJA (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2718016261749089).

In September, the police modified the Police General Orders to severely restrict the definition of a journalist, excluding citizen journalists and student media outlets. The police said the changes would facilitate media coverage, but Vivian Tam of Journalism Educators for Press Freedom pointed out that she had helped Police Public Relations Branch to allow student reporters to leave PolyU during the clashes there in November 2019. 8 media unions, including the HKJA, held a press conference to condemn the change (https://facebook.com/hkcolumn/photos/a.1446445815572813/2759784050905643/).

In December, however, it emerged that it was the police who had not identified themselves properly. Justice Anderson Chow in the Court of First Instance found in favour of the HKJA after they lodged a case in response to the police’s repeated refusal to properly identify reporters. Chow also held that the existing complaints mechanism was inadequate and that the Complaints Against Police Office was not independent of the police as a whole (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2810230569194324). The police rejected the ruling and planned to appeal (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2824363347781046).

Jimmy Lai case

The owner of Apple Daily, a pro-democracy local newspaper, was caught up in various legal troubles and caught international attention this year.

In December, Lai was charged with fraud and remanded in police custody till his trial in April. 2 other executives of Next Digital, Apple Daily’s publisher, were also charged, but were granted bail. They were accused of violating the terms of Next Digital’s lease (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2821820781368636). When Lai appeared in court later, he did so in chains. The police additionally charged him with collusion with a foreign country or external elements to endanger national security, the first such charge under the National Security Law (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2828239674060080). In late December, Lai was granted bail by the High Court, but the bail conditions left him under effective house arrest and prohibited him from giving interviews or publishing articles. The court required $10 million cash bail and a $300,000 surety.  (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2836732149877499).

After the court granted bail to the media tycoon Jimmy Lai in late December, he had to pay a cash bail of HK$10 million and surrender his travel documents, along with other bail conditions, including not accepting media interviews and not posting on social media (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2836470046570376). Despite all those harsh conditions, a Chinese state-run newspaper criticised the High Court for granting the “serious offender” bail. (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2839423089608405). Jimmy Lai resigned on 29 Dec as the chairman of Next Digital, which will be taken up by Ip Yut-kin (https://facebook.com/hkcolumn/photos/a.1446445815572813/2841007502783297/). On the last day of the year, Lai was put in remand again (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/photos/a.1489251731292221/2842420849308629/).

Lai’s arrest attracted international attention. Mike Pence and Mike Pompeo called for his release (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2829035060647208). The Deputy Secretary-General of Taiwan’s ruling Democratic Progressive Party said that he thought the CCP had a had in Lai’s arrest as well as other incidents such as mass lay-offs at Cable News (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2822074144676633). Reporters sans frontières (Reporters Without Borders) announced that Lai was their special laureate this year (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2825976994286348). In China, Gu Minkang of the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macau Studies said that Lai should be tried in China to set an example (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2831357710414943).

International

After the US government imposed restrictions on Chinese state media, China retaliated by expelling 13 American journalists (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2602246826659367). Hong Kong Watch condemned the expulsion (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2601844540032929). The Foreign Correspondents’ Club noted that they will also be prohibited from working in Hong Kong, which was prima facie inconsistent with the protection of press freedom in Hong Kong (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2602047046679345).

Visa troubles also hit Aaron Mc Nicholas, an Irish journalist. After 5 years of reporting in Hong Kong, the Immigration Department refused to renew his visa. Mc Nicholas was planning to take up a job at an online English media outlet in Hong Kong. As usual, ImmD did not state why (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2766684486882266). The Foreign Correspondents’ Club asked the Immigration Department whether a new national security unit had been asked to vet journalists’ visa applications (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/photos/a.1446445815572813/2722792634604785/). The Immigration Department, however, refused to give a clear answer (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2728290110721704).

An RTHK journalist asked Bruce Aylward, a senior WHO official, whether it should consider admitting Taiwan. Aylward then pretended not to be able to hear and then hung up (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2612179592332757). Edward Yau, Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, then claimed that RTHK had in some unspecified way violated the ‘One China’ principle by asking about Taiwan. When asked, Carrie Lam said that she agreed with Edward Yau (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2618859284998121).

Internationally, Hong Kong has fallen further down press freedom rankings. It now is 80th (down by 7) internationally due to noticeable problem in its treatment of journalists during pro-democracy demonstrations, according to Reporters sans frontières (Reporters Without Borders) (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2759352134282168).

In October, Danny Vincent, BBC's journalist in Hong Kong, said he was followed by a suspicious man. He found someone waiting for him outside his home in the same week that Next Digital founder Jimmy Lai Chee-ying and others were arrested for violating Hong Kong's National Security Law, and that he saw the same car at various locations and after moving to a hotel (facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2771063163111065).

Broadsides from the pro-Beijing camp

The government’s attitude to public relations has hardened over the years. In December, the Security Bureau issued a vague statement about Ted Hui, who had fled into exile, but declined to name him. It condemned as ‘shameful’ any abscondment ‘to avoid legal responsibility’, and denounced ‘so-called “exile”’ (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2822408864643161). Some academics think that the vocabulary of the Hong Kong government has changed, increasingly echoing the central government’s shrill tones of denunciation (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2831638880386826).

Police unions have long been angered by any critical coverage in the media. Now the staff of the Immigration Department have joined them. RTHK’s ‘Hong Kong Connection’ alleged inhumane treatment at the Castle Peak Bay Immigration Centre. 4 unions condemned the report, as did Elizabeth Quat, a pro-Beijing lawmaker (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2832083513675696). The Immigration Department also condemned critical coverage (https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/posts/2832491796968201).

Wing Wing: Unfriendly Hong Kong? Misinterpretation!

Unfriendly Hong Kong? Misinterpretation!

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Edited by Karen L. and Kristee Q., Written by Wing Wing (翼雙飛)
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/04-12-2015/22307 

The Oriental Daily recently published an article, titled "The Unfriendliest Cities in the World. Hong Kong ranks the 4th", saying that "although the survey conducted by Yahoo Travel did not explain the reason why, it did mention the 'unfriendly people' are mostly youngsters. It could be that reasons may relate to the recent anti-smugglers movement against mainland Chinese tourists."

Right. There are always people who assume young adults are useless, who choose to choose to shift the blame to others despite the fact that business operations are after all the business owner's responsibility, or those people who oppose the anti-smugglers movement -- these people will be more than willing to falsify the news. It is to be expected that they comment, "The image of Hong Kong is now tarnished by these 'useless young'! See! Surveys abroad prove it too! It is exactly what I've been saying..." On the Facebook pages of those pro-government/establishment figures (Translator's note: they are usually written in Chinese rather than English), you will find tonnes of these anti-"youngsters" quotes.

To be fair enough, do not judge a book by its cover and in this case do not judge a news report by its title, or else you will be hoodwinked. Please do take a look of the original survey "The Unfriendliest City in the World is..." and its content -- "The survey group consisted of 2,005 men and women, all from the United States."

Translation. The title "in the World" is obviously misleading -- unless the world consists of the opinions of 2,005 Americans. If you ask 2,000 or so Hongkongers what country's cuisines they love most and publish an article named "The Most Popular Cuisines in the World", does it reflect the truth? Changing the former one into "The Unfriendliest Cities in the eyes of US people" and the latter one into "The Most Popular Cuisines in Hong Kong" is surely closer to what the facts represent. After this clarification of the 'surveys' is there a sense that supposed-to-be factual news report from Oriental Daily is manufactured bullshit tailored for their reader's demographic?

In the comment section of the article, there are many doubts, like "What background do these 2,000 people have? A survey as such can only be worth referencing if the participants have travelled to few countries so that they can draw any conclusions. If a participant has only been to Hong Kong, then honestly does this disqualify the participant from deciding which one is "The Unfriendliest City in the World".

Another travel site Conde Nest Traveler announces "Readers' Choice Awards" on a annually basis. In Readers' Choice Awards 2014, there were approximately 77,000 readers participating in the survey, outnumbering Yahoo's survey. The site ranks Johannesburg, South Africa as the unfriendliest city, while Beijing ranks 6th, whereas Hong Kong isn't on the list. It also lists out all the factors of "unfriendliness", such as location and size of the city, political views, language barriers and so on, but not necessarily people's attitudes. Yes, Yahoo Travel doesn't necessarily have to mention the method it used to conduct the survey. Be it transparent or not, the writer of the news article quoting the survey is definitely not being objective for he/she attempted to put words into those 2,005 participants’ mouths.

The "The Unfriendliest City in the World is..." article from Yahoo Travel is nonsense. After considering the evidence this is certain. Yet the Oriental Daily, regardless of the paper's political bent, supports its allegation about the anti-smugglers movement by using that survey so  people can say, "You see! These useless youths are but tarnishing HK's image!" But when asked for details and for evidence no response has been forthcoming.

I continued in reading the Yahoo Travel article, it says,

"And more millennials considered Hong Kong, China, and Sydney, Australia, to be rude compared with respondents 35 and older."

Some misinterpret this as saying that youngsters in Hong Kong are less friendly than those aged 35 or above. I'm not saying that you shouldn't read newspapers at all, but to be critical -- when you see "it is speculated that", "it is said that", "some say", or any similar sort of such, pay attention and consider whether it's reasonable or not.Surely these news items are not in fact news but merely opinion pieces.In today's Hong Kong, most of the officials, politicians, and media do not bother to do a great job, let alone uphold the spirit that the job implies. It's up to you at the end of the day whether you are manipulated or not.

Atsuna: Sheep in HK, don't boast about your plumpness in front of lion

Sheep in Hong Kong, don't boast about your plumpness in front of lion

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Written by Atsuna
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/12-01-2014/19860 
[When the article was published, the Umbrella Revolution was not ended yet.]

(Source: PassionTimes)

Lu Xun said, "It does not matter if a lion brags about its big size. But it does matter if the subject becomes a pig or a sheep." Hongkongers, you better boast less about how "rational and peaceful" you are. It is the Communist Party you are facing. You may regard the HKSAR Government as no more than a puppet. Nonetheless it carries the violent genes of its "Northern Overlord".

How long has CY Leung taken over Hong Kong? Two years only has the Hong Kong Police transformed back into "jerks with badges" at the old times, or become Chinese-style "Gong'an" (police) or "Chengguan" (city management squad) who beats up dissidents and protesters. If you still, under such circumstance, decide to brag how peaceful and rational you are used to be, you are just confessing to the Communist that we are simply docile objects without bargaining powers.

Even if all 7 million people in Hong Kong took to the street, the HKSAR Government will not slightly budge. It is not Gau Wu (Translator's note: another form of occupy movement) generating the public pressure that would have led to their submission? To them, it is no more than wandering around the streets and resuming work the next day after that?

Many people think that China was among the victors in WWII, but not Japanese. They rather attribute their defeat to USA instead due to the admiration of the strong. To the same reason, they have always looked down upon China. In Chinese view, Japanese only respect stronger countries and belittle weaker ones. And the Communists herself in China "goes the extra mile". Not only do the Commies want to admired the stronger ones, they want to fear the weaker ones — that's the core value of the Chinese communist regime. Upholding peace and rationality, like us, will be treated as weaker ones in the eyes of such authoritarians.

In the entire Umbrella Revolution, only a single piece of glass was broken. Somehow the shattered glass triggered many criticisms. The Yellow Ribbons condemned such "violence" for that behaviour ruined the moral high ground of the Umbrella Revolution. And they felt shameful to have broken foreign media's high expectation.

Hong Kong calls itself as an international city, whereas there is a lot of room for improving its "internationalisation". A slip in the "English proficiency ranking" by some Western private education institution is enough to set Hongkongers moaning and groaning.

Hongkongers long for aura of morality as children without independence long for praises — more shining it be if the giver belongs to foreign media. It would be fairly nice if we can achieve democracy and freedom in a peaceful manner. But any reasonable person knows that won't be the case, but purely sheer fantasy. Inevitably, there is bound to be "violence" against an authoritarian regime. Look at the Ukrainians as an example. You would not find any Western media to condemn them as being not peaceful enough given their extreme situation there.

Whenever brave warriors charge the police, people at the back will discourage them and ask them to "be calm, and refrain from provoking police officers". I won't say all of them are turncoats. I believe that they want democracy as we do, but they are just cursed to implement "Peaceful, rational, non-violence, non-swearing" spirit regardless of the situations.

To be honest, everyone might once be a leftard. People as such condemn the government, be part of a peaceful and rational demonstration, and check in on Facebook. Altogether, they regard themselves as being on the moral high ground. But as you spend more time to understand politics, people as such will eventually reduce to "radical localists". The clock of Hong Kong is tickling. Unchanged for 50 years, a joke indeed. CY Leung getting the post, comes with faster speed of "merge and acquisition".

From leftard to "radical localist", it takes time. We have no time. Hongkongers need to have "genetic mutation" if we want to live. From sitting there and waiting to be arrested (Occupy Central), to bearing with tear gas and truncheons at the beginning of the revolution, and now producing self-made shields, charging the police, throwing eggs and stuff to the police - two weeks ago, you dare not think about it. But it is just "the fittest of survival". It's okay not to charge in the front line, but at least stop saying "Don't charge!". Because you are facing an authoritarian regime. Your peace and rationality might not anger them; you are just "exempted" from being beaten immediately, but your rights may be deprived politically anyway for such evil regime. Not charging, that's fine; but you should be ready to scramble protesters with the police. Protect everyone who dares to charge, because attacking is the best defence. Without them, we are just plump sheep in the eyes of lion.

Peace and rationality is equally important to genuine universal suffrage - these are important universal values we hold dear. But as sheep do not flaunt their plumpness in front of lion, you have to be sober in prioritising things when the authoritarian is greedily showing its own desire over Hong Kong. In such critical moment, upholding "peace and rationality" is just a slow suicide which makes you feel good about.

Mingpao: Is HK still the HK we knew? 王維基的遭遇 使許多人對香港陌生起來

Is HK still the HK we knew? 王維基的遭遇 使許多人對香港陌生起來

Translated and Written by Ming Pao

Original: http://english.mingpao.com/cfm/database3.cfm?File=20140313/critic/ema1.txt 

2014/3/13

【明報專訊】HONG KONG TELEVISION NETWORK (HKTV) chairman Ricky Wong, a man who never gives up easily, said he had "come to a dead end" after his company had been informed by the Communications Authority that, if it wanted to provide TV programmes for an audience of more than 5,000 households with known addresses, it must have a free-to-air or pay-TV licence, or it might violate the Broadcasting Ordinance.

香港電視網絡（簡稱港視）收到通訊事務管理局通知，若港視提供的節目超過5000個「指明處所」組成的觀眾接收，就必須領取免費電視或收費電視牌照，否則可能牴觸《廣播條例》。就此，一向鍥而不捨的港視主席王維基慨嘆已經「走投無路」。

Wong's plans to start his TV business have suffered one setback after another. Last year, the government came to a decision regarding the award of new free-to-air TV licences. While HKTV had allocated more resources to its projects and was better prepared than the other applicants, the government rejected its application and refused to explain the decision. HKTV then acquired from a subsidiary of China Mobile its mobile-TV licence, which was generally regarded as a new breath of life for the company. However, shortly afterwards, China Mobile announced that it was conducting an internal inquiry into the deal between its subsidiary and HKTV, giving rise to doubts as to the validity of HKTV's acquisition of the mobile-TV licence. And then Television Broadcasts (TVB) declared that, with effect from July 6, it would terminate an agreement to lease to HKTV six hilltop transmission stations. As a result, HKTV's plan to launch mobile-TV services on July 1 became even more uncertain.

王維基爭取做電視業務，可謂一波三折。去年政府審批新增免費電視牌照，雖然港視投入的資源較多，準備較充分，政府並未授予牌照，也拒絕提供決定的理據；其後，港視從國企中移動一家子公司，收購得流動電視業務，使人認為港視「敗部復活」，不過，未幾中移動母公司發出公告，就這宗涉及子公司的交易啟動內部調查，此一轉折，使人對港視取得流動電視牌照會否存在變數，已有疑問；之後，無綫電視預告今年7月6日起，終止租用6個山頂發射站給港視，港視能否如期在7月1日啟播，存在陰影。

And now HKTV is faced with a regulation problem. According to the Communications Authority, it has given a "friendly reminder" to HKTV saying that if the company's transmission system enables it to provide instantaneously mobile-TV services for an audience of more than 5,000 households with known addresses, it must first of all possess a free-to-air or pay-TV licence. It is true that the Broadcasting Ordinance says a company must have a TV licence if it wants to provide TV services for "an audience of more than 5,000 specified premises". However, when years ago the mobile-TV licence issue was being discussed in the Legislative Council, the papers submitted by the government stated clearly that it did not propose to amend the Broadcasting Ordinance and bring mobile-TV services under its regulation.

今次，港視遇到的問題涉及監管。通訊局形容，現在是「善意提醒」港視，若港視建議的傳送制式使本港超過5000個指明處所組成的觀眾，即時接收其流動電視服務，則在開展營運業務之前，須先取得免費電視或收費電視牌照。《廣播條例》確有「超過5000個指明處所」所組成的觀眾接收，均須領有電視牌照的規定，不過，關於流動電視牌照，當年在立法會討論時，政府提交的文件，表明不建議修訂《廣播條例》以規管流動電視牌照。

Now the Communications Authority is applying the ordinance to HKTV's mobile-TV services. This is a de facto policy change. Moreover, as Wong has pointed out, when mobile-TV services were provided by China Mobile's subsidiary, whose transmissions could reach 90 percent of the population, the government did not attempt to impose any regulations; however, with Wong's acquisition of the mobile-TV licence, the government is taking steps to bind his hands with the Broadcasting Ordinance. Wong believes the government is applying the law differently to different people.

現在，通訊局實際上把流動電視牌照納入廣播條例規管範圍，這是政策轉變。另外，王維基提到，以往中移動子公司擁有有關牌照時，廣播範圍覆蓋本港九成人口，當時政府未提出要規管，他收購牌照後，政府卻要監管，認為法律因人而異。

Hong Kong has traditionally upheld the principle of equality before the law. What is happening to Wong and HKTV is foreign to our experience. Today's Hong Kong is no longer the Hong Kong that so many of us knew so well. To put it simply, we see in the HKTV case the rule of man. The rule of law appears to have slipped far, far away.

本港一貫執法不會因人而異，若以此檢視目前王維基與港視的處境，他們的遭遇，會使許多人對香港的認知，變得很陌生，超乎港人熟悉的經驗，簡單而言，使人看到人治的影子，法治好像飄行去遠了。

The many hurdles put in Wong's way show that the powers that be are making every effort to prevent the expansion of the TV industry. And the measures they have taken are so unreasonable that one cannot but wonder: What is happening to Hong Kong? This is a question which we believe many people are asking.

從王維基的遭遇，使人看到他被一股力量千方百計地封殺開拓電視業務，所顯露的蠻橫手段，香港到底發生什麼事？相信會是許多、許多人的疑問。

(Photo added by Chen-t'ang, source from Delight Media Hong Kong)