bc is Twenty-Nine!

Happy Birthday to us!

Twenty-nine years ago on the 1st September 1994, bc magazine debuted on the streets of Hong Kong.

A lot of people – staff, friends, advertisers and readers have been involved over the years, thank you for your continued support and strength especially now. Stay safe.

Carpe Diem!

28 Anniversary, bc magazine

Happy Birthday to us!

Twenty-eight years ago today, bc magazine debuted on the streets of Hong Kong.

A lot of people – staff, friends, advertisers and readers have been involved over the years, thank you for your continued support and strength especially now.

Carpe Diem!

HKPPA News Photo of the Year: The Pillar of Shame

The Hong Kong Press Photographers Association (HKPPA) has announced the winner of its annual “Focus on the Frontline” photo competition.

The 2021 winner is HK01‘s Liu Ngan Hung for his photo “The Pillar of Shame” depicting workers removing the Pillar of Shame from HKU. The statue remembers those murdered when the People’s Liberation Army opened fire on democracy protesters in Tian’anmen Square on 4 June 1989.

The “Focus On The Frontline” photo contest began in 1993 and has become one of the most prestigious awards for local photojournalists. Through the competition, the HKPPA looks for photographs that are important to Hong Kong’s history and which combine the elements of art and journalism.

Commenting on the winner “The jury thinks ‘The Pillar of Shame’ reflects the Hong Kong people’s sustained concern over June 4th, which is also a yearning and worries for the country’s democratisation. As workers removed the pillar in the twilight, it symbolises the freedoms of thought and expression once cherished in Hong Kong being dispossessed. The lighting condition and framing of the photograph gives it a baroque aesthetic, bringing tension to the work. The posture of workers lowering their heads to avoid being photographed and the darkness that envelopes the action are metaphorical, constructing a meaning that is more than the sum of all the visual elements in the image.”

Ming Pao’s Lam Oi Yee image of people drinking on a street, metres away from a fatal car accident came second in the Spot News category.

Lam Oi Yee

Press Freedom Plunges….

Hong Kong’s ‘press freedom’ has plunged 68 places to 148th (out of 180) since the implementation of the National Security Law as government critics are jailed and publications silenced.

The 20th World Press Freedom Index published by Reporters Without Borders (RSF) reveals a large increase in polarisation amplified by information chaos – that is, media polarisation fuelling and feeding divisions within and between countries.

The spread of ‘opinion media’ and disinformation are amplified by the way social media functions and are creating extreme polarisation of views with an unrepresented and unlistened to middle ground.

“At the international level, democracies are being weakened by the asymmetry between open societies and despotic regimes that control their media and online platforms while waging propaganda wars against democracies.”

Reporters Without Borders defines press freedom as “the effective possibility for journalists, as individuals and as groups, to select, produce and disseminate news and information in the public interest, independently from political, economic, legal and social interference, and without threats to their physical and mental safety.”

In order to reflect press freedom’s complexity, five indicators are used to compile the Index: the political context, legal framework, economic context, sociocultural context, and security.

image: The Korea Herald

FCC Opposes New Hong Kong Police Accreditation Process for Journalists

The FCC issued the following statement in regards to the new restrictions imposed by the police on journalists in Hong Kong. If the HK Police have nothing to hide, then they should not fear media scrutiny of their actions.

Sadly, in numerous recent court cases, video evidence from journalists has proved that the HK Police have submitted factually inaccurate statements under oath to the court in attempts to convict innocent HongKongers.

Here is the FCC statement in full, including a letter from the HK Police to the FCC.

The Foreign Correspondents’ Club, Hong Kong, is firmly opposed to a restrictive new accreditation policy for journalists in the city as detailed in a 22 Sept. letter from the Hong Kong Police. This move is another step in the erosion of Hong Kong’s once cherished press freedom as it would give the police — rather than reporters and editors — the power to determine who covers the police.

The changes are not referred to as an accreditation system, but rather a redefinition of who is a journalist in the Police General Orders with the aim of “allowing frontline officers to efficiently and swiftly verify the identity of media representatives.” The letter says the police force will “amend the definition of ‘media representatives’ under the Police General Orders.” Yet the practical impact is the same as accreditation or licensing.

The new rule says police will only recognise as media those who have registered with the Government News and Media Information Service, or members of “internationally recognised and reputable” foreign media outlets. The goal, according to police spokesmen, is to weed out so-called “fake reporters,” who they claim — without offering evidence — have obstructed police operations and even assaulted police officers on duty.

The FCC stands firmly against the system detailed in the Hong Kong Police Force’s letter for the following reasons:

* It undercuts the local journalist organisations whose membership cards have been routinely recognised and respected, the Hong Kong Journalists’ Association and the Hong Kong Press Photographers Association. These organisations conduct rigorous vetting of candidates before issuing membership cards, and this move by the police would take the power to determine who is a legitimate journalist out of the hands of journalists’ groups and place it in the hands of a government entity. That in itself is a serious erosion of press freedom and independence.

* The new scheme would give police officers the power to decide what foreign media outlets are “internationally recognised and reputable.” How would that be determined? With the proliferation of new media outlets around the world, how can the police on the ground determine which ones are “internationally recognised” and deserving to be treated as legitimate? What about media that do not publish or broadcast in English, or that are not widely known outside of their home countries or immediate regions — are they not to be considered real journalists?

* The policy would be a serious blow for freelancers and student reporters — two groups of journalists who have provided some of the most compelling reporting from last year’s protests and police actions. Many journalists now operate as freelancers, some working regularly for specific organisations, and many others offering their stories and videos to multiple outlets “on spec”. News outlets have come to rely on freelancers due to the changing economics of the industry. But most of them cannot obtain registration because of their freelance status.

Student journalists, likewise, have been integral to the reporting on — and public understanding of — last year’s protest movement. Student reporters have faced the same dangers as veteran journalists, and some have been injured.

But this is about more than access to events and invitations to the inside of the police cordon. Journalists who are not recognised under this new policy could face the real possibility of arrest for unlawful assembly or rioting.

Before this new policy, Hong Kong had already dropped to an ignominious 80th place on the Reporters Without Borders annual press freedom index of 180 countries, down from 48th place in 2009. And that was before the 10 August police raid on the headquarters of Apple Daily and the arrest of its founder, Jimmy Lai.

The Hong Kong police in their letter say they “always respect press freedom and their rights of journalists.” If that is the case, they should welcome free and unfettered access to their operations and should encourage open reporting instead of trying to restrict the number of journalists covering its operations. A force that is proud of its discipline and confident its officers follow established protocols and guidelines should have nothing to fear from the spotlight journalists shine on it.

Source: https://www.fcchk.org/fcc-opposes-hong-kong-police-accreditation-process-for-journalists/

Where to Access Coronavirus News Without a Paywall

When it comes to coronavirus news / COVID-19, there is a mass of misinformation and charlatans looking to profit from the suffering of others.

Many of the media sources you might trust are behind paywalls – journalism after all costs money – with limited free articles.

However because of the seriousness and global nature of the pandemic many news outlets have made their COVID-19 news free to access. Here is list of major outlets with free updates and articles:

The New York Times is offering its COVID-19 coverage for free.

The Washington Post has a free email newsletter for coronavirus-related news. All articles linked in the newsletter are free.

The Los Angeles Times coronavirus liveblog is available for free.

The Wall Street Journal has created a free section for coronavirus articles.

The Atlantic is offering all coronavirus-related articles for free.

The Star is labeling free articles related to the coronavirus with a red “free digital access” label.

The Guardian has no paywall.

BBC has no paywall

Associated Press

STAT, which covers health and medicine, is offering its coronavirus coverage for free.

Forbes Deletes Article on Asia Society Billionaire Chairman Ronnie Chan

After the Asia Society blocked Joshua Wong speaking at the launch of a book about Hong Kong recently Forbes published an article written by analyst Anders Corr about the Asia Society’s local chairman Ronnie Chan.

The feature has since ‘disappeared’ from the Forbes website with Chan’s influence suspected to be behind Forbes decision to remove article. For those who missed it here’s Corr’s article in full.

The Asia Society recently barred a student democracy activist, Joshua Wong, from speaking at a Hong Kong literary event. It caused a wave of critical online comments and reporting on the Asia Society, and its influential billionaire donor Ronnie Chan. Chan is Co-Chair of the Asia Society in New York, and Chair of its Hong Kong Center, which has been likened to Chan’s private club.

Chan is known for his anti-democratic views, involvement in foreign policy think tanks, and extensive investments in mainland China. Those investments, as well as his investments in Hong Kong, give him an incentive to ingratiate himself with mainland authorities by promoting China’s foreign policies. Those authorities, after all, have the power to make or break Chan’s business. The issue is broader than Asia Society, though, as Chan and his family are major donors at influential institutions in the US, including Harvard University and the University of Southern California (USC).

Orville Schell of the Asia Society, and Susan Shirk, on the Board of Scholars at the Chan-affiliated USC US-China Institute among other roles, co-chaired an influential study of US-China Relations in February. Had Hillary Clinton won the US presidency, some in the Schell-Shirk task force, such as Shirk herself and Kurt Campbell of the Asia Group, would have been poised to seek influential positions in US government. The focus of Chan’s attentions on institutions that are politically influential on US-China relations raises the question as to whether China is seeking to use Chan, a dual US-Hong Kong citizen, to influence US foreign policy on China.

While the Hong Kong office of the Asia Society released a statement that said the decision to bar the democracy activist was “an error in judgment at the staff level”, several individuals with whom I communicated suspected Ronnie Chan’s influence to be behind the decision. That influence may or may not have been explicit. When a major funder shows a general preference against a class of people, for example democracy and freedom of speech advocates, then staff who counter that preference do so at the peril of their own organisation and jobs.

“Sounds like someone will take a bullet for Ronnie (that is, after all, what he pays them for),” said Joe Studwell, author of How Asia Works and The China Dream. “Ronnie will retain all powers and be left to figure out new ways to avoid any ‘controversy’ at Asia Society HK [Hong Kong]. I’d go for a pure, unspoken focus on ‘cultural’ issues, just like Beijing would want. No contemporary sociology, politics, economics, etc. More oracle bones and Ming vases.”

That prediction would be consistent with recent trends at Asia Society Hong Kong against politically controversial figures stretching back to at least 2009. At least four persons who support democracy and freedom of speech, in addition to Joshua Wong, may have been barred from the Hong Kong chapter of the Asia Society, including Martin Lee, Evans Chan, James Mann, and Renee Chiang.

Martin Lee is the founding Chair of the Democratic Party in Hong Kong. He was arrested during the 2014 democracy protest. According to one source, he has never been invited by the Asia Society in Hong Kong to an event.

Evans Chan filmed a documentary on the 2014 democracy movement in Hong Kong. He said that, “last October, Asia Society cancelled a screening of my film, Raise the Umbrellas, for an ‘unbalanced’ post-screening discussion with Martin [Lee] & Benny Tai.” The New York Times covered the cancellation without apology from the Asia Society, which indicates that the action was probably noted by its leadership without change in policy, since Asia Society Hong Kong repeated itself with Joshua Wong and in at least one other case.

James Mann of the Los Angeles Times commented on Facebook on July 6, “I was asked to speak in Hong Kong a few years ago, and Ronnie Chan vetoed my appearance. The only surprise to me here is that the Asia Society in NY, which professes a belief in liberal values, should allow this sort of thing to happen again and again and again. I guess they must need his money desperately.”

Renee Chiang, the wife of publisher Bao Pu, commented on Facebook that, “I can also confirm being turned down by Asia Society Hong Kong when the Zhao Ziyang book (Prisoner of the State) was published in 2009. Meanwhile, Asia Society in New York hosted a panel talk about the book, at which Orville Schell admitted getting a phone call from Chinese authorities voicing their disapproval, yet they did what they should do: they ignored the threat and held the talk anyway. In Hong Kong, no such call is needed, as they appear to have in-house censors.”

Studwell noted that “the HK government gave Ronnie a very valuable piece of public property (the old arsenal), which he was then allowed to refurbish… and operate as a sort [of] quasi private members club. But the whole thing, surely, only worked because the Asia Society in the United States of America let him use its brand to get his hands on the place.”

The question is then whether the Asia Society headquarters in New York, including its Co-Chair and 66 trustees, are complicit in what appears by its repeated programming decisions in Hong Kong, to be amplification of Chinese government propaganda. What do the Asia Society Co-Chair and trustees, some of whom do business in China, get out of the deal? Is the Chinese government seeking to use Chan to politically influence these trustees and others? Are the trustees seeking access or favors from Chan in China? Chan and staff of the Asia Society Hong Kong office did not reply to requests for comment.

Chan has connections, sometimes very weighty ones, at Harvard University in Cambridge Massachusetts, the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington D.C., the World Economic Forum in Switzerland, the East-West Centre in Hawaii, and the Council on Foreign Relations in New York and Washington D.C. These connections are facilitated by donations or the hope of donations, according to a source. The Chan family, through its Morningside Foundation, donated $350 million to Harvard University. This is the largest ever single donation to Harvard.

The latest Asia Society controversy has “renewed questions about the influence that China, and people with deep business interests in China, hold over universities, nongovernmental organisations and other groups that rely on wealthy donors,” wrote Austin Ramzy at The New York Times. Ramzy noted that Ronnie Chan was an “outspoken supporter of Leung Chun-Ying, the pro-Beijing former chief executive [of Hong Kong] who was a target of the 2014 protests.”

Studwell said, “Doesn’t the Asia Society just show the problems of having corporate-led NGOs anywhere in the world? As an organisation it has totally failed to set up a governance system that could deliver freedom of speech. I don’t blame a Ronnie Chan-run Asia Society (HK) for that as his behaviour is entirely predictable based a) on his track record of kowtowing to all Establishments and b) on his vested interests in having a large mainland property portfolio. I personally think that the corporate US interests behind the Asia Society have more to answer for, though not much more because, as I said, corporate-led NGOs don’t work when push comes to political shove.”

Chan’s influence and connections, fueled by profits dependent on the Chinese government, could be used to promote China’s foreign policy interests among elites in the US And the elitism that Chan promotes is consistent with what elites in China think. Victor Shih said, “many in the elite stratum of China, even the younger generation, believe that most people in China, except for the elite, are incapable of making sound political decisions.” With President Trump’s election, that anti-democratic message could resonate among elite Democrats and Republicans alike, whose establishment political connections, for example through the Clinton and Bush families, were ruptured by Donald Trump’s election.

“Ronnie Chan is one of a small number of Hong Kong tycoons who are US-educated or had extensive US experience,” said Edith Terry, former opinion editor at the South China Morning Post in Hong Kong. “The most prominent members besides Ronnie are Tung Chee-hwa and Victor Fung. They regularly hold senior public roles in Hong Kong and most are also members of the Hong Kong delegation.” The CPPCC is a mainland Chinese government body.

Terry said, “The question of influence, however, is a subtle one. They represent a highly privileged class in Hong Kong that has huge vested interest in stability, a continuation of the status quo, not changing it. I believe that for this group, the game is more about keeping senior US policy makers and institutions engaged with the Hong Kong question. There is of course some exertion of soft power both ways. In this case, I would say the tycoons and the multinational elite here talk off the same page. Free speech only goes so far when talk of independence invites intervention by Beijing.

You could say they are all practical billionaires. Whatever their personal feelings are about free speech and Ronnie is notorious for speaking whatever is on his mind, and can be blunt to the point of rudeness in public before large audiences. They know that talk of independence is toxic and are convinced that the only way to stop it is to criminalise it by introducing a national security law, which would be in accordance with the Basic Law and is long overdue in their view. Ronnie and his cohort are extremely sophisticated and understand the usefulness of soft power through back channels and elite institutions. They are very good at it, and it is about being in position to deflect or argue points, not broadcasting simple, black and white messages.”

The perception of undemocratic influence that elites in Hong Kong have on international and domestic politics may be one cause for increasing political instability in Hong Kong. Michael Davis, former professor of law at the University of Hong Kong, said, “in the Hong Kong context this is more than just a free speech issue. I have long felt that the radicalisation of Hong Kong politics is due in no small part to the perception that the Hong Kong government and the pro-establishment business elites do not make much effort to represent the core concerns of Hong Kong people to the Central government and more generally. It seems to be a culture where they regularly lecture Hong Kong on Beijing’s requirements.

So if a prominent organization such as the Asia Society is thought to be leading the charge as Beijing’s mouthpiece in Hong Kong then that is a serious problem and contributes to the sense of futility among our young –not the sort of community service you would expect from such an organisation. Does the society have any mechanism at all to review its policies and practices?”

Studwell thinks that the Asia Society in New York should ask Chan to decrease his influence over programming in Hong Kong. Studwell writes, “I lay responsibility for all of this at the door of the Asia Society in the United States. If the Asia Society believes in free expression and debate, it should very politely, and gratefully given all the money, offer Ronnie two choices: 1. Ronnie steps down, and allows the Asia Society to put in place a governance structure that means that the Asia Society HK operates according to a clearly stated set of principles. Given the government ownership of the premises, I don’t think the HK operation can or should be run from the US. What is needed is a local system that operates according to transparent rules, preferably with an elected board. 2. The Asia Society removes its imprimatur and its moniker, Ronnie picks a new name (Asian Values Society(TM)?), and does things his way.”

Given Chan’s Co-Chairmanship of the Asia Society in New York, such a decision would likely have to be made by his Co-Chair, Henrietta Fore, along with at least half of the 66 trustees. Fore is former Administrator of US AID, and a member of the boards of Essilor International SA, general Mills, Exxon Mobil Corporation, and Theravance Biopharma Inc. The trustees include such personages as Ambassador John Negroponte, currently a Senior Fellow at Yale University, talk show host Charlie Rose, former Australian prime minister Kevin Rudd, and Stephen Schwarzman, CEO of Blackstone Group. Blackstone does extensive business in China, and has $368 billion in Assets Under Management. Chan may not be the only one seeking favor in Beijing.

These and other trustees should take action per Studwell’s advice, or risk their own reputations. The Asia Society, democracy, and free speech will be the better for it, though the trustees’ commercial access in China could suffer. That, like Asia Society’s decision to bar Joshua Wong, is a judgment call.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/anderscorr/2017/07/10/chinese-influence-at-the-asia-society-elitism-and-radicalisation-in-hong-kong/#69700cf53910

Censorship, Intimidation and Harassment of SCMP Reader

scmp-powering-through---2-january-2016

It’s ironic that while on it’s front pages the SCMP vociferously advocates for press freedom and the release of Bo Lee and his fellow disappeared. The reality within it’s own pages is that of censorship, intimidation and harassment of any reader who dare criticise or question an SCMP employee. The exact type of actions that the SCMP would have its readers believe it looks to expose in others. The hypocrisy is sad.

On the 1 January the SCMP’s Kevin Kung spent 16 hours, working until 1am, on a story about the New Year’s Day Youth Rugby Tournament at HK Football Club. By his own admission he didn’t stay until the end of the tournament. A sterling effort you might think, except that the published article, a massive 250 or so words, quite simply ignores half the participants. Focusing solely on the boys rugby, reading his original story you’d never know that half the rugby played that day was by girls.

Linda Olson the administrator and driving force behind the Women’s Rugby Hong Kong Facebook group enquired politely of Mr Kung about the gender bias in his article.

“I am wondering why you only reported on boys’ rugby in the article below?
The headline makes it sound as if only boys took part.
The article itself makes no mention of the girls who played.
The video includes only brief coverage of girls rugby (the U12s team and captain).
This is unacceptable.
Nearly a quarter of rugby players in Hong Kong are girls/women and it is the most rapidly expanding demographic here.
Please ensure that your coverage is more inclusive in future..”

The article’s author Mr Kung replied and made some edits to ‘improve’ the online version of the article:
1. “Girls” was added to the sub-headline making it gender neutral.
2. A photo with caption of Gracie Hood (GH) was added.
3. An extra paragraph added to the end of the article mentioned the U19s girls’ game (but did not name the Captain as they had with the boys game) and GH being named Best and Fairest of the match.
Mrs Olson notified the WRHK Facebook group members of the changes and thanked Mr Kung for making them, at the same time providing a quantitative analysis of the gender imbalance of the SCMP coverage.

Mr Kung however had also cc’d in SCMP Sports Editor Noel Prentice who then fired off an intimidatory and threatening email to Mrs Olson which he cc’d to senior figures at the HK Rugby Union AND Mrs Olson’s employer!!!

Mr Prentice’s email is quite astounding in it’s arrogance, tone and less than full disclosure of facts.

“I take exception to you accusing my reporter and SCMP of sexist coverage when Kevin has gone out of his way to cover rugby and the New Year’s Day tournament. He spent 16 hours compiling the online and print coverage so please have some respect.

SCMP is a great supporter of rugby and we give what many consider a niche sport a disproportionate amount of coverage. (bc’s note: why, because the HK Rugby Union pay the SCMP a lot of money to write about local and international rugby). And we have also gone out of our way to cover the emergence of women/girls in the game and the opportunity they have been afforded.

We do not have the resources to give blanket coverage to any sport and all sports and events are judged on their news value.

We also strive to be fair and balanced and I would expect you to also adhere to these principles when delivering any gender bias lectures to the students of Li Po Chun United World College of Hong Kong.” SCMP’s Noel Prentice

If it takes Mr Kung 16 hours to write a 250 or so word article it does explain a lot about why the SCMP print edition is so thin and lacking in content compared to years past. Joking aside Noel Prentice’s email is factually mis-representative of Mrs Olson’s enquiry and comment; neglects to mention that the HKRU pays the SCMP lots of money to ‘support’ the writing and publishing of stories about rugby; and extremely patronising of the fairer sex “the emergence of women/girls in the game and the opportunity they have been afforded” and by assuming that boys rugby coverage is of value, while coverage of girls youth rugby has no news value.

If the original article was to quote Mr Prentice “Fair and balanced” then Mrs Olson wouldn’t have needed to contact Mr Kung and could have used the story to show how the media was covering girls and women’s rugby in the same detail as men’s rugby. That it didn’t make any mention of 50% of the tournaments participants makes it unbalanced not fully accurate and a perfect example of gender imbalance in the media – the subject of Mrs Olson’s frustration and her class.

Why Mr Prentice also cc’d Mrs Olson employer, in what appears to be a blatant intimidation attempt to damage her professional standing and work relationship with her employer – while at the same time looking to censor the use of SCMP content in an education setting – is something the SCMP failed to answer when bc emailed them asking for a comment.

Read the full email conversation here – email addresses have been removed to protect people’s privacy.
Read about women’s rugby in bc magazine and here on the Women’s Rugby Hong Kong facebook group.