Hong Kong’s security chief has again slammed Ming Pao after the newspaper ran an editorial defending a reporter who asked the official why his trip to Thailand earlier this month went unannounced.
On March 7, Secretary for Security Chris Tang rebuked the Ming Pao journalist for asking why his visit to Thailand was not published in the gazette – the government notice board – per usual practice.
Tang said that the rescue operation of Hong Kong residents from a Myanmar scam farm had to be done discreetly, suggesting the reporter was “finding flaws” to “undermine” the government’s credibility.
In Ming Pao’s editorial, published on Wednesday, Deputy Chief Editor Lam Oi-shun defended the reporter, saying it was “very reasonable” to ask about the gazettal.
“The purpose of gazetting the departure of principal officials from Hong Kong is to arrange for acting appointments, so that when the officials leave Hong Kong, there will be acting officials who can exercise the relevant statutory powers,” Lam wrote.
As the minister had not followed the usual procedure, there was nothing wrong with the reporter’s question, Lam wrote.
“And yet, in this era of social division, even such a reasonable question is challenged. This shows that the job of a frontline reporter is not an easy one,” he continued.
“Of course, this problem is not unique to Hong Kong. Do you not see that in the United States, across the Pacific Ocean, Associated Press reporters are also banned from entering the Oval Office by the White House?”
‘Misleading readers’
However, in a letter to the newspaper, Tang doubled down, accusing the paper of finding fault with the government’s actions.
Tang said that he “already made it clear at the outset” when meeting the press on March 7 that he had left Hong Kong to coordinate the rescue operation.
“I believe that all Hong Kong people are concerned about the safety of Hong Kong people under detention and the effectiveness of the operation,” he added.
Tang also wrote that Ming Pao “focused on the arrangements for announcing overseas visits, rather than the safety of Hong Kong people,” which he claimed had given the public the impression that the paper’s aim was to find inadequacies in the government.
“Does this also represent the attitude of the newspaper in covering the news?” Tang asked.
Tang also criticised Lam for not mentioning he had told the reporter that the security chief’s movements had to be kept confidential “to ensure the safety of the people of Hong Kong.”
By failing to disclose that, he said, the editor “has deprived the public of their right to know.”
Tang continued: “One cannot help but wonder if Ming Pao’s attitude is once again misleading readers into thinking that I am purely targeting journalists, and have not answered any of the journalists’ questions.”
In the editorial, Lam wrote that Tang “gave some explanations” without quoting the official at length. Ming Pao had included Tang’s explanation in an earlier report, published on March 8.
Over the past two years, the Hong Kong government has lashed out at Ming Pao over news reports, opinion pieces, and satirical cartoons.
On March 5, Tang warned the paper not to be “exploited by people with ulterior motives” as he condemned legal scholar Johannes Chan for “undermining the rule of law” in a Ming Pao opinion piece criticising a court ruling.
In January, the newspaper defended its journalism after the government described one of its reports on a cybersecurity bill as “biased and misleading.”
In August, Ming Pao urged its columnists to be “prudent” and “law-abiding” when penning for the newspaper, saying “crisis may come” if they were not compliant.
