1672 – Yuli Riswati: Domestic Worker and Citizen Journalist

“If I can do something small to help Hong Kong people and Indonesians to put the truth in front of them to see, then it’s worth it.”

Yuli Riswati worked in Hong Kong as a domestic helper and on her days off covered news and events for Indonesians in Hong Kong on Migran Pos –  a website she launched with her friends.

“Suddenly, not only was my connection with the outside world severed the connection between my name and myself was gone. My existence as a human instantly turned into a string of numbers. 1672.”

After a month in detention, Yuli was deported by Hong Kong Immigration in 2019 – even though she had a valid work visa and her employers were happy with her work.

yuli riswati -1672

Picnic at Tamar Park – 3rd Anniversary

Deported lawyer Samuel Bickett has published an article about what he witnessed and photographed when the Hong Kong Police attacked a peaceful anti-extradition law protest on 12 June, 2019.

June 12, 2019: What I witnessed on the Hong Kong protest movement’s first violent day

Hong Kong’s protest movement is often referred to abroad as a democracy movement. It is true that universal suffrage was, and is, one of Hongkongers’ goals. But democracy was never the primary focus of the 2019 protests. After initial protests against an onerous bill that would have allowed Hongkongers to be extradited to the Chinese Mainland, attention shifted to police brutality and justice for its victims. Of the five demands made by the protesters, three were related to police and prosecutorial abuses, and all three initially stemmed from a single day of violence: June 12, 2019.

Sunday is the third anniversary of that day. Known in Hong Kong simply as 612 (luk-yat-yi in Cantonese), that afternoon the Beijing-controlled Legislative Council (or LegCo) was planning to force through the deeply unpopular extradition bill. In response, Hongkongers staged a general strike and organized a protest in front of the LegCo Building. The demonstration was authorized and largely peaceful, but police soon rushed in with batons and shields, and shot tear gas, rubber bullets and bean bag rounds into the crowd. Protesters were arrested, and countless people were injured. The police declared the event a riot, despite the fact that they instigated the violence themselves.

I was at the demonstration that day. This is what I witnessed…

Read the rest of the article here https://samuelbickett.substack.com/

image and text: Samuel Bickett

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

American Lawyer Samuel Bickett Deported

American lawyer Samuel Bickett who was convicted of ‘assaulting’ an undercover policeman who denied he was a cop – has been released from jail and deported.

HKSAR Government Responds to Media Freedom Coalition Statement

Today 9 February, the Hong Kong Government published a response to a statement from the Media Freedom Coalition about freedom of the press in Hong Kong. Here is the press release in full.

“HKSAR Government strongly opposes misleading and baseless allegations by foreign entities on freedoms of the press and speech in Hong Kong.

The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) today (February 9) strongly condemned a totally erroneous statement issued by the United Kingdom Government in the name of a number of foreign entities under the so-called “Media Freedom Coalition” concerning the implementation of the Hong Kong National Security Law.

A spokesperson for the HKSAR Government said, “The HKSAR is proud of its unwavering commitment to the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, which underpin the city’s success as an international business and financial centre. Under Article 25 of the Basic Law, all Hong Kong residents shall be equal before the law. It is baseless for the signatories to the statement to make such allegations that our authorities have targeted and suppressed independent media in the HKSAR since the enactment of the Hong Kong National Security Law.

“Since the city’s reunification with the motherland, the HKSAR Government has been firmly committed to safeguarding the freedoms of the press and speech, both of which are protected under the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights. As a matter of fact, Article 4 of the Hong Kong National Security Law stipulates that such freedoms shall be protected in accordance with the law while safeguarding national security in the HKSAR.”

The spokesperson added, “Foreign countries that have in their respective jurisdictions national security legislation which is more wide-ranging than the Hong Kong National Security Law are no doubt aware that according to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the exercising of the freedoms of the press and speech must comply with the restrictions of the law for reasons including protection of national security.

“We must reiterate that all law enforcement actions taken by Hong Kong law enforcement agencies under the Hong Kong National Security Law, or indeed any local legislation, are based on evidence, strictly according to the law and for the acts of the persons or entities concerned, and have nothing to do with their occupation, background or political stance. The law enforcement actions taken by the HKSAR Government against Stand News adhered to such fundamental principles.

“We must also point out that the media landscape in Hong Kong is as vibrant as ever. As a case in point, a total of 209 media organisations, be they based locally, in the Mainland or overseas, are registered with the HKSAR Government News and Media Information System of the Information Services Department at present, showing an increase after the implementation of the Hong Kong National Security Law. As always, the media can exercise their right to monitor the HKSAR Government’s work, and their freedom of commenting on or even criticising government policies remains uninhibited as long as this is not in violation of the law.

“We express our deep regret and must rebuke those foreign entities for signing a ‘media freedom-related’ statement that contained no more than the usual fact-twisting and opinionated attacks against the Hong Kong National Security Law since its promulgation for implementation in the HKSAR upon the passage by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on June 30, 2020. Contrary to their allegations, the implementation of the Hong Kong National Security Law has restored stability in society and the people of Hong Kong are no longer threatened or intimidated by acts or activities endangering national security or their everyday life.”

Media Freedom Coalition Statement on Closure of Media Outlets in Hong Kong

The undersigned members of the Media Freedom Coalition express their deep concern at the Hong Kong and mainland Chinese authorities’ attacks on freedom of the press and their suppression of independent local media in Hong Kong.

Recent developments include the raid of Stand News offices, the arrests of its staff, and the subsequent self-closure of Citizen News, stemming from concern over the safety of its staff. Since the enactment of the National Security Law in June 2020, authorities have targeted and suppressed independent media in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. This has eroded the protected rights and freedoms set out in the Basic Law and undermines China’s obligations under the Sino-British Joint Declaration. This has also caused the near-complete disappearance of local independent media outlets in Hong Kong. These ongoing actions further undermine confidence in Hong Kong’s international reputation through the suppression of human rights, freedom of speech and free flow and exchange of opinions and information.

A stable and prosperous Hong Kong in which human rights and fundamental freedoms are protected should be in everybody’s interest. We urge Hong Kong and mainland Chinese authorities to respect freedom of the press and freedom of speech in Hong Kong, in line with the Basic Law and China’s obligations under the Sino-British Joint Declaration.

Co-signatures:
Australia
Austria
Canada
Czech Republic
Estonia
Finland
Germany
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
the Netherlands
New Zealand
Slovakia
Slovenia
Switzerland
the United Kingdom
the United States

Media Freedom CoalitionMedia Freedom Coalition

50 countries have signed up to the Media Freedom Coalition and pledged to:

  • speak out and take action together, through a Media Freedom Coalition
  • harness the power of diplomatic networks, through a new Media Freedom Contact Group
  • reinforce international initiatives to champion media freedom
  • meet annually to renew commitments and to address emerging threats and opportunities

The pledge was published and signed as part of the Global Conference for Media Freedom hosted by the UK and Canadian governments in London on 10 and 11 July 2019. It is published in English and French.

Amnesty International to Close Its Hong Kong Offices

In a damning inditement of the ‘new’ Hong Kong under the 2020 National Security Law Amnesty International announced today that it will close both its Hong Kong Offices.

The local ‘section’ office will cease operations on 31 October while the regional office – which is part of Amnesty’s global International Secretariat – is due to close by the end of 2021. Regional operations will be moved to the organization’s other offices in the Asia-Pacific.

“This decision, made with a heavy heart, has been driven by Hong Kong’s national security law, which has made it effectively impossible for human rights organizations in Hong Kong to work freely and without fear of serious reprisals from the government,” said Anjhula Mya Singh Bais, chair of Amnesty’s International Board.

“Hong Kong has long been an ideal regional base for international civil society organizations, but the recent targeting of local human rights and trade union groups signals an intensification of the authorities’ campaign to rid the city of all dissenting voices. It is increasingly difficult for us to keep operating in such an unstable environment.”

The two are Amnesty offices are a local membership section focused on human rights education in the city; and a regional office that carries out research, advocacy and campaigning work on East and Southeast Asia and the Pacific.

“We are deeply indebted to Amnesty members and staff who over the last 40 years have worked tirelessly to protect human rights in and from Hong Kong. From successfully pushing for the full abolition of the death penalty in Hong Kong in 1993, to exposing evidence of excessive use of force by police during the 2019 mass protests, Amnesty in Hong Kong has shone a light on human rights violations in the darkest of days,” said Agnes Callamard, Secretary General of Amnesty International.

“In the wider region, our research and campaigning has tackled subjects including freedom of expression in North Korea, conscientious objection to military service in South Korea, the right to housing in Mongolia, Japan’s wartime atrocities against “comfort women”, and the crackdown on human rights lawyers in China.

“Moreover, Amnesty International Hong Kong’s education programmes – from classroom talks to a documentary film festival – have enhanced awareness of human rights not only in the city’s schools but among the general public as well. No one and no power can demolish that legacy.”

Amnesty documented the rapid deterioration of human rights in Hong Kong one year after the enactment of the national security law in a June 2021 briefing.

“The environment of repression and perpetual uncertainty created by the national security law makes it impossible to know what activities might lead to criminal sanctions. The law has repeatedly been used to target people who have upset the authorities for any number of reasons – from singing political songs to discussing human rights issues in the classroom,” said Anjhula Mya Singh Bais.

“The pattern of raids, arrests and prosecutions against perceived opponents has highlighted how the vagueness of the law can be manipulated to build a case against whomsoever the authorities choose.”

A government crackdown targeting activists, opposition politicians and independent media has recently expanded to include civil society organizations. At least 35 groups have disbanded since the law was enacted, including some of the city’s largest unions and activist groups.

“There are difficult days ahead for human rights in Hong Kong, but Amnesty International will continue to stand with the people of Hong Kong.  We will fight for their rights to be respected and we will be vigilant in our scrutiny of those who abuse them,” said Agnes Callamard.

“While leaving the city that we have called home for decades is devastating, we do so proud of our achievements over that time, and confident that the strength of Amnesty’s 10 million-plus supporters worldwide will enable us to continue our work together to end human rights abuses everywhere.”

Proposed Amendments to Film Censorship Ordinance Announced

In June, the Government introduced amendments to the Film Censorship Guidelines for Censors to provide censors with clearer guidance to consider the implications of a film on national security, so as to decide whether the film is suitable for exhibition and its classification.

The proposed amendments [to Cap. 392 Film Censorship Ordinance] announced today are ‘designed’ to quote “enhance the film censorship regulatory framework, with a view to ensuring more effective fulfilment of the duty to safeguard national security as required by the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, as well as preventing and suppressing acts or activities that may endanger national security.”

Unveiling the new bill, Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Edward Yau Tang-wah said there would be NO appeal mechanism for bans issued on security grounds.

Yau continued “Amendments giving the Chief Secretary power to revoke the certificates of approval previously issued for films, there is a chance that past movies could be banned from public screening,”

In response to the question: How do you define a movie as ‘contrary to interests of national security? Yau answered ” NSL is the main reference New ordinance also goes into more details covering what might endorse/support/promote/glorify/encourage/incite such act/activity which might endanger national security”

The key proposals in the new Bill are:

(a) to set out explicitly that a censor should consider whether the exhibition of a film would be contrary to the interests of national security, so as to provide clear statutory backing for a censor to give due consideration to national security when making film decisions;

(b) to empower the Chief Secretary for Administration to direct the Film Censorship Authority to revoke certificates of approval or certificates of exemption previously issued for films if their exhibition would be contrary to the interests of national security;

(c) the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development (SCED) may grant extension of time for a period of no more than 28 days each time for a censor to make a decision where the Authority is of the opinion that the exhibition of the film might be contrary to the interests of national security, allowing sufficient time for the censor to deal with cases that may involve national security considerations and to seek legal advice; and

(d) to disapply [remove] the relevant sections that empower the Board of Review (Film Censorship) to consider requests for review of the decisions of the Authority or a censor, for decisions made on national security grounds.

With no appeal now allowed against the censors decision, has the government killed off both Hong Kong’s film industry and it’s cinemas?

Other amendments to the current law the government wants to make include:

(a) to specify that a censor can request the addition of a specific notice to a film, to serve as a reminder to viewers (or their parents) to mitigate potentially undesirable effects;

(b) to empower the Authority [OFNAA] to require the holders of certificates of exemption or certificates of approval to provide information about the exhibition of their respective films, such as the date, time and venue, and to empower an inspector authorised by the Authority to enter and search any place with the authority of a judicial warrant in order to enhance the inspector’s ability to take enforcement action;

(c) to impose heavier penalties for exhibiting films that are not exempted or approved, raising the maximum penalty to imprisonment for three years and/or a fine of $1 million;

(d) to remove the specified number of non-official members to be appointed, as well as to empower the SCED [Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development] to appoint a public officer as his representative to attend and vote at the Review Board meetings, in order to allow greater flexibility to determine the composition of the Review Board.

Illustration: Derek Zheng