Letter: Concern for Hong Kong's press freedom
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Any measure to safeguard human rights in Hong Kong after 1997 is, of course, welcome (report, 14 April), but first things first.
On 28 March, Xi Yang, a reporter for the Hong Kong Ming Pao newspaper, was given a punitive 12-year prison sentence for gathering information about gold transactions and interest rate adjustments by the People's Bank of China. By invoking a sweeping state security law to punish Xi Yang, the Chinese authorities have heightened concerns that Hong Kong journalists may be intimidated from undertaking normal information-gathering following transition to Chinese rule.
We believe that Xi Yang's conviction adds great urgency to the need for the Hong Kong government to amend or repeal existing local legislation which may well be used to justify the restriction of freedom of expression in Hong Kong after 1997. This legislation includes the Emergency Regulations Ordinance; the Official Secrets Act of 1989; the Broadcasting Authority Ordinance; and the Television and Telecommunications Ordinance, among others. These laws authorise censorship, veto a public interest defence for the exposure of broad categories of information, and incorporate dangerously broad definitions of treason and seditious intention.
Yours faithfully,
FRANCES D'SOUZA
Executive Director
Article 19
London, SE1
14 April
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments