For the first time, Hong Kong imprisons a journalist for ‘sedition’

Another former editor who was convicted of the same charge — Patrick Lam, 36 — was given a shorter sentence that allowed for his immediate release. Chung and Lam spent nearly a year in jail before they were granted bail ahead of their trial.

Chung, who was the outlet’s editor in chief, and Lam, the acting editor in chief at the time of the raid, were convicted in late August of sedition for publishing articles that the judge ruled could sow “hatred” of the Hong Kong government and authorities. These articles include news reporting, interviews, profiles and commentary pieces, all published between 2020 and 2021.

Chung’s sentence of one year and nine months is almost at the maximum sentencing range for the offense, which is two years in prison. The judge allowed Lam to serve a shorter sentence, citing his brief stint in the top editor role and his health. Lam is suffering from a rare kidney condition.

The two are the first journalists to be convicted and sentenced for sedition, a British colonial-era law which has been used alongside Beijing-drafted national security legislation to crush dissent in the once-freewheeling city.

The sentence heightens the already precarious situation for journalists in Hong Kong. In the past two weeks alone, dozens of Hong Kong journalists have been subjected to online harassment and defamatory letters sent to their families and associates. Separately, a photographer from the Associated Press, whose application for a work visa earlier this year was rejected, was denied entry into the city last week when she tried to visit.

Two sets of laws — the Beijing-imposed National Security Law passed in 2020, and additional national security legislation that came into force earlier this year — have allowed authorities to punish free expression, including journalism, that was meant to be protected under Hong Kong’s mini-constitution, the Basic Law.

Hong Kong’s media environment is now plagued by fear, self-censorship and a sense of anxiety about where the red lines are, according to press groups, journalists and human rights advocates. This situation is mirrored in other areas where speech and thought are meant to be protected, including at universities.

“The journalism cases show something much broader: that there is no rule of law for political cases in Hong Kong anymore,” said Mark Clifford, president of the Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation and a former director of Next Digital, which published Apple Daily, the pro-democracy newspaper similarly forced to shut down by the government. “What has happened to journalists and others is beyond what I would have imagined.”

Beyond journalism, activists say the crackdown has stifled space for independent academic research on the politics and society of Hong Kong. The National Security Law has created an increasingly repressive environment in the humanities departments of the city’s eight public universities that has forced students and academics to self-censor or face “harassment, retribution and even prosecution” from authorities, Human Rights Watch said in a report published Wednesday.

In their defense during the trial, Chung and Lam’s lawyers argued that the articles were the kinds of routine journalism that had been practiced for decades in Hong Kong.

The city’s media environment was once one of the most boisterous in Asia, and it continued to thrive even after Britain handed Hong Kong over to China in 1997. It was an aspect of life that highlighted the “one country, two systems” formula that allowed the financial city to operate differently from the mainland.

But in the wake of the anti-government protests in 2019, those who offer views counter to the official narrative — journalists, opposition lawmakers, activists and ordinary citizens — have been targeted. Analysts say this is all part of an effort to remake Hong Kong in Beijing’s image.

The Hong Kong government has pushed back strongly against critics who say the Stand News conviction will further crush press freedom. It argues that the courts have instead clarified the difference between lawful constructive criticism and “unlawful” speech.

Journalists operating in Hong Kong, however, say the red lines remain vague, leading to second-guessing and an avoidance of topics — including in-depth investigations — that could be deemed problematic.

Reporters “will never be able to guess whether comparisons or analogies [used in an article] are appropriate in the eyes of a judge,” said Selina Cheng, chair of the Hong Kong Journalists’ Association. “From what we observe in the industry … what they can only do is complete guesswork.”

When he was convicted last month, Lam, the acting editor in chief, submitted a mitigation letter contending that his outlet “documented Hong Kong as best we could, trying to leave a first draft of history before these people and events disappeared.”

“The only way for journalists to defend the freedom of the press is to report, just like everyone who is still holding fast to their posts today,” he wrote.