Tang condemns New York Times article on arrests
SingTao · 3 SOURCES1 day ago5 MIN
Summary
Security Secretary Chris Tang Ping-keung (鄧炳強) said on October 2 that he had written to the editors of The New York Times to express strong opposition to, and condemnation of, one of its articles about a Hong Kong journalist’s arrest after covering a gathering linked to the 2019 anti-extradition protests. Tang said the article distorted facts and made baseless allegations against the Hong Kong National Security Law and the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance. He argued that the law enforcement action in question was lawful, evidence-based and unrelated to the suspect’s political stance, background or profession. Tang also said the case had nothing to do with press freedom, despite the way the article presented it.
Key Points
- The New York Times article cited by Tang was titled “Hong Kong Journalist Arrested After Covering Gathering Linked to 2019 Protests,” according to Sing Tao’s report
- Tang said safeguarding national security is every country’s top priority, and argued that the United States also has numerous and expanding national security laws.
- He accused The New York Times of applying a double standard and making irresponsible, hypocritical criticism of Hong Kong’s national security legislation.
- Tang said police investigation showed the arrested person was suspected of spreading false information and smearing the Hong Kong government and police with lies
- He said the suspect was believed to have intended to incite hatred against the Hong Kong government and law enforcement, potentially breaching Article 24 of the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance
Why It Matters
The dispute goes beyond one newspaper article because it concerns how Hong Kong officials publicly defend national security enforcement when overseas media frame arrests as press freedom cases. For Hong Kong readers, the government’s message is that journalists remain protected only when operating within what officials describe as legal and responsible reporting boundaries