· Commissioner Liu Guangyuan Met Outgoing CG of Spain(2022-07-28) · Commissioner Liu Guangyuan Met Outgoing CG of Myanmar(2022-07-28) · Commissioner Liu Guangyuan Met Outgoing CG of the US(2022-07-16) · Commissioner Liu Guangyuan Met Outgoing CG of Finland(2022-07-16) · Commissioner Liu Guangyuan’s Piece on SCMP: Hong Kong has a bright future under “one country, two systems”(2022-07-16)
Home > Spokesperson's Remarks
To the Editorial Board of the Washington Post
2024-03-12 18:19

Editorial Board of the Washington Post:

 

I am deeply shocked by your ignorance and double-standard on Hong Kong after reading your editorial piece titled “With the new security law, Hong Kong doubles down on repression” published on March 10.

 

The Hong Kong 47 case mentioned in your piece is being tried by Hong Kong courts in accordance with law. To your dismay, the evidence exposed during the trials shows that those charged are not as “innocent” as you thought, and I believe the courts will make fair verdicts. I totally understand your despair of “letting all 47 go free”, but I suggest you leave the judgment to the courts, because it is their job, right?

 

When I read the part about the Jimmy Lai case, I just can’t help laughing. You insisted that Lai was exercising his right as the founder and owner of the Apple Daily when the newspaper editorialized in favor of U.S. sanctions against Hong Kong officials, and that it “seems like normal editorial decisions or the prerogatives of a media owner”. What about this: the owner of the Washington Post exercises his prerogatives of ordering you to editorialize in favor of foreign sanctions against U.S. officials?

 

I have some experience in dealing with U.S. media, and they seem to be rather proud of the red line that prevents the owner of a media agency from interfering with the specific operation of the agency. Then why the red line turns into green light, even a “normal prerogative” in the case of Jimmy Lai and Apple Daily? 

 

Lai ordered Apple Daily not to publish any positive reports about China, and not to badmouth certain U.S. politicians in a bid to win their support. How do you comment on that? Does the “golden” rule of “fairness, objectivity and balance” of Western journalism still apply here?

 

On Article 23 legislation of Hong Kong Basic Law, you claimed that the public consultation period was “shortened”. As far as I know, the USA Patriot Act was passed just 45 days after the 9/11 attacks without holding a hearing. I wonder if the time for this legislation is also “shortened” based on your standard? Have you ever bothered to opine against it?

 

Many jurisdictions have their own legislation based on national security needs. The US has 21 such laws, the UK has 14 while Hong Kong has none locally enacted. After the U.S. Capitol attack, more than 800 people have been sentenced in relation to that and some even got record 22 years in prison. How could the US possibly do that without its national security laws in place?

 

You are right in referring to February 28 this year, the end of Article 23 legislation consultation period, as a “milestone”, but it is a milestone marking Hong Kong’s upward trajectory from chaos to stability and prosperity, rather than “downward trajectory” in your gloomy forecast. Surely, I assume, you don’t want to see a repeat of the riots on Capitol Hill, right? So, when Hong Kong is striving to avoid a repeat of chaos, and provide a better living and business environment with a national security law, how can anyone with common sense say Hong Kong is on a “downward trajectory”? 

 

Regarding your alarmist assertion that “China has crushed what had been one of its greatest assets”, well, just relax and take a deep breath. With the firm support of the Chinese government and the Chinese people, the Pearl of the Orient will only shine even brighter.


Spokesperson of the Commissioner’s Office of the Foreign Ministry of the People’s Republic of China in the HKSAR

March 12, 2024