The Hong Kong government’s watchdog has found no evidence of maladministration by the Information Services Department (ISD), following an investigation into how the government PR wing handled unexplained media bans at an April press event.
The Committee for Safeguarding National Security organised a National Security Education Day event on April 15. The ISD invited select media outlets to attend an opening ceremony at the Convention and Exhibition Centre, officiated by top Chinese official Xia Baolong. the director of the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council was on an inspection visit in the city.
When challenged as to why several mainstream, government-registered outlets were barred, the ISD ignored several emails and evaded questions by phone. They refused to respond to writing, saying only that they had contacted the Committee.
The Ombudsman agreed to launch an investigation in May following a complaint by HKFP, a registered outlet that regularly attends government press events.
In a letter received last week, the Ombudsman said that its probe had concluded, finding that ISD officers “did refer HKFP’s enquiries to the Committee and [kept] the enquirer informed of the actions taken from time to time whenever HKFP called.” In conclusion, it said that the media bans were the Committee’s decision, not the ISD’s, and – since they were unable to investigate the national security committee – the watchdog had to “refrain from making comments on the matter.”
“[W]e consider ISD to have handled the matter in accordance with its role and responsibilities by forwarding HKFP’s enquiries to the Committee, as well as providing information and updates during your telephone enquiries. On this score, we do not see any maladministration on ISD’s part,” it said.
The Committee for Safeguarding National Security does not have a media liaison officer, and all media registrations for the April event were handled by ISD. When HKFP contacted the police PR team, they referred the enquiry back to the ISD.
The Ombudsman is not empowered to investigate the Committee, nor matters relating to national security. Meanwhile, HKFP’s Code on Access to Information request to the ISD – to obtain more details – was denied, with an official saying that the code did not apply to the national security committee.
The city’s journalists’ association said the repeated media bans lack transparency and “jeopardise press freedom.”
The controversy came despite repeated calls from top officials for the media to to tell “a good Hong Kong story.”
Unexplained media bans
When the ISD refused to reveal the media invite list for a press event on July 1 last year, HKFP’s complaint to the Ombudsman was rejected. It agreed with official assertions that revealing the media invite list would aid “terrorists,” yet found “inadequacies” in the government’s handling of HKFP’s Code on Access to Information complaint.
Hong Kong has plummeted in international press freedom indices since the onset of the security law. Watchdogs cite the arrest of journalists, raids on newsrooms and the closure of around 10 media outlets including Apple Daily, Stand News and Citizen News. Over 1,000 journalists have lost their jobs, whilst many emigrated. Meanwhile, the city’s government-funded broadcaster RTHK has adopted new editorial guidelines, purged its archives and axed news and satirical shows.
See also: Explainer: Hong Kong’s press freedom under the national security law
In 2022, Chief Executive John Lee has said press freedom was “in the pocket” of Hongkongers but “nobody is above the law.” Lee, whose administration is mulling a “fake news” law, has told the press to “tell a good Hong Kong story.”
Support HKFP | Policies & Ethics | Error/typo? | Contact Us | Newsletter | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps
Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team
LATEST FROM HKFP
HKFP has an impartial stance, transparent funding, and balanced coverage guided by an Ethics Code and Corrections Policy.
Support press freedom & help us surpass 1,000 monthly Patrons: 100% independent, governed by an ethics code & not-for-profit.
