He has been a journalist since 1993 and is currently the editor of a foreign medium. For security reasons, Tak Fong prefers to keep his media, as well as where he lives, a secret. He participates in the international campaign aimed at opposing the attempted censorship of the song “Glory to Hong Kong” by the local authorities of this special administrative region of the People’s Republic of China. Interview at TSF.
Why is a song a threat to national security?
I don’t quite understand it from the point of view of the people, but maybe from the point of view of the dictators, they think that the song can spread the ideas of independent thought and promote more democracy. That is what they fear.
A Hong Kong judge, Wilson Chan of the Hong Kong High Court, on Monday postponed a ruling on a petition to ban the online distribution of the popular pro-democracy protest song, in a case that could call into question the form in which technology companies operate in Chinese territory. After asking the government to be more specific about the scope of the request, the judge scheduled a new hearing for July 21… So the case will continue… What is your comment on that?
Well, it’s very interesting, because July 21 also marks the anniversary of a brutal attack by gangsters in Hong Kong on protesters four years ago.
So, do you think it was postponed to that specific day so that the authorities could give a signal?
I’m not sure. There are some theories. One theory is that this is a pure coincidence. But another theory is that some people in the legal business are subtly trying to send a message that they don’t agree with this ban.
The song Glory to Hong Kong became the most searched term on Google’s search engine for “Hong Kong national anthem” and was even mistakenly used in international sports competitions, such as the Ice Hockey World Championships, instead of the Chinese anthem… the government, the song “caused not only offense to the original anthem, but also serious damage to the country and Hong Kong.” What are your expectations regarding this international campaign for this song to be played on the radio and on the Internet?
Well, I think… let me put it this way: the anniversary of the Hong Kong demonstrations or the 2019 Hong Kong protests, it’s not just a Hong Kong issue, but it can be associated with all countries, especially Portugal. , of many ways.
Because?
Because, in fact, what Hong Kong is facing, the challenge Hong Kong is facing today, could one day be the challenge of Portugal. When Hong Kong was first handed over to Chinese sovereignty in 1997, more than 20 years ago, the Chinese Communist Party promised the Hong Kong people a lot of autonomy, even promising that there would be universal elections, genuine elections for the Hong Kong people to elect its chief executive and members of the legislature.
Was that part of the deal made with the British and the late Governor Chris Patton?
It’s in black and white in Hong Kong’s Basic Law, the constitution, but the Chinese government ended up swallowing those words and that promise was never kept. But what I’m trying to say is, in the case of Portugal, first of all, the Chinese government made a lot of promises, like “we’re going to invest in a lot of ways, like the belt and road“, like, for example, a few years ago, a Chinese company bought the largest electricity company in Portugal, EDP. At first glance, it seems harmless. But in the end, when they have something to say, when they become more and more influential “In the economy of Portugal, the day of economic and political coercion will come. This is exactly what happened in Hong Kong. At first, the Chinese government promised Hong Kong a high degree of autonomy and promised that it would be one country with two systems. But finally now everything is gone There is only one country and one system.
Do you compare the situation in Hong Kong with that in Macao?
Yes, in fact, the situation in Hong Kong and Macao is quite similar, I would say.
The aim of the Hong Kong authorities is “to prevent the song from being broadcast or performed with the intent to incite others to secede or for seditious purposes,” the Justice Department said in a statement. The government also intends to “prevent the song from being broadcast or performed as the Hong Kong national anthem with the intention of insulting the official anthem” as well as “safeguarding national security and preserving the dignity of the anthem” of China. What is your comment on the reasonableness of these arguments?
Well, I say: if they really had a real respect for free speech, they wouldn’t be so…
Concerned?
Yeah. They wouldn’t be such a pain in the ass trying to…trying to control a song. This is just a song, for God’s sake.
Monday’s case was not formally filed under the National Security Law. But the government cited this law last week as a reason why the court must grant his request under the National Security Law. In your opinion, is the Hong Kong government increasingly trying to suppress dissent and free speech?
Yes it’s true. The Hong Kong government has become more and more draconian, as you may have noticed, it has arrested politicians from the pro-democracy camp and has also arrested journalists who are critical of the government and is planning to introduce another law that will further tighten control of technology over the society. -called national security.
So is this also a matter of tension between tech companies and the Hong Kong authorities? EITHER Wall Street Journal I just said that American tech giants are slowly cutting off access to internet users in Hong Kong…
Of course, because of this “Glory to Hong Kong” incident, the Hong Kong government is further distancing itself from international tech giants. And that could damage China’s status as an international trade hub, because if Google or YouTube can’t be used in Hong Kong, then Hong Kong will become just another city in mainland China.
Government requests to remove content from the Internet have increased tremendously since the National Security Law was passed. Hong Kong authorities requested the removal of 183 items from services such as YouTube and Google search in the second half of 2022, a maximum of 10 years, according to Google. The company rejected about half of those requests, which means, and this is my question, why did you accept the other 50%?
Well, I really don’t know why Google decided to do that, but it shouldn’t, because Google is supposed to be a platform where everyone can freely express their point of view and freely create and distribute the music they like without any fear. .or without any limits, except in what is a real challenge to some very basic principles, like, for example, trying to encourage people to commit suicide or something like that. You can not do that. Correct. But aside from those few exceptions, we have to accept that people have a platform where they can freely express their opinion.
Tak, was it this political environment in Hong Kong that made you decide to leave the country?
Yes it was. Because, when he was leaving Hong Kong, several journalists he knew were being arrested and jailed.
Do you expect to return?
Not in the near future…
Why don’t you see any changes in the near future?
Yes, I don’t see any change in the near future, except if there is a drastic change in China. Then maybe I’ll come back.
What would be the conditions for this drastic change to occur?
I think President Xi Jinping should be fired to begin with before drastic changes take place.
But he has a lifetime mandate…
Yes, it has a lifetime term. So this is pretty unlikely.
How do you see the Chinese position regarding the war in Ukraine?
Well, I think the Chinese position is obviously unfair, because they demanded that Ukraine agree to cede some territory to Russia, despite the Russian occupation and invasion. This invasion is unfair, and I think China’s so-called mediation is not really fair.
Source: TSF
