2024-04-09 12:20:38
Earlier, “Radio Free Asia” transferred its staff from Hong Kong to Taipei, and the entire “station” was closed. Its supervisor stated that he was worried about the safety of its employees, which caused a lot of discussion. Originally, there would be no problem for a normal news media to conduct normal interviews in Hong Kong in accordance with the law. However, it will inevitably be “suspicious and secret” towards some biased foreign media. Recently, the Wall Street Journal appointed a new news director for Asia, but his location is different from the past, from Hong Kong to Singapore. What is the reason? The announcement did not make it clear, but it reminds me that both the Office of the Commissioner of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Hong Kong and the Hong Kong government have strongly refuted the newspaper’s biased comments. The newspaper’s above-mentioned arrangement at this time seems to be more than just technical considerations.
The Asia news director of the Wall Street Journal has always been based in Hong Kong, but Deborah Ball, who just took over the post on April 1, has moved to Singapore. Whether it is for political considerations is arousing speculation.
A friend who is often in contact with foreign media sent me the news about the news director of the Wall Street Journal. Andrew Dowell, who was originally responsible for the news in Asia, will be transferred to Dubai to serve as the director of the Middle East. He has been stationed in Hong Kong for more than seven years, directing the reporting work in Asia.
Deborah Ball, who took over as head of Asia, took up her duties on April 1. Unlike her original position, she will not be stationed in Hong Kong permanently, but will move to Singapore to work, where she will remotely direct editorial and production staff across Asia. I will go to Hong Kong during the meeting.
As for the original staff at the Asia Headquarters in Hong Kong, they will still be retained. It is not that the entire “station” will be moved. However, friends estimate that this may be just the first step. The supervisor will go to Sin Chew first, and some subordinates may be gradually transferred. I believe there will be more to come. With.
The Wall Street Journal’s announcement did not say whether this arrangement was related to politics. However, after Article 23 was successfully enacted, the newspaper’s editorial attracted fierce criticism from the Commissioner’s Office of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Hong Kong, which was very explosive. The editorial was titled “Hong Kong’s Great Retrogression”, saying that Hong Kong already has a national security law, but it feels it is “not enough” and still needs to enact Article 23 legislation. Hong Kong will become “more dangerous” in the future, and accuses the Hong Kong government of focusing on fighting “It’s too late” for the economy. The Commissioner’s Office of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Hong Kong wrote to the newspaper, criticizing the editorial for taking the sensational trick to the extreme. The statements contained therein are completely malicious hype.
The Commissioner’s Office of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Hong Kong earlier sent a letter to the Wall Street Journal to strongly refute its editorial on Article 23 of the legislation, saying that the newspaper had taken sensationalism to the extreme and was full of malicious hype.
In addition to its pungent comments on the 23 pieces of legislation, the Wall Street Journal was also mentioned in Jimmy Lai’s case, revealing that some of the newspaper’s top executives had close ties with Lai, such as the newspaper’s columnist and former White House chief writer, McGregor. , and Gordon Crovitz, the former publisher of the newspaper, are all old friends with Li Zhiying, making the two media organizations partners, so the newspaper has repeatedly issued articles calling for Li Zhiying’s release.
A friend told me that the editorial team and the news department of The Wall Street Journal are two different departments and operate separately. However, under the current relationship, the news department may need to “stabilize the situation” and first determine the situation.
The worries of the foreign media are mostly due to “frightening themselves” and they just regard their prejudices as reality. Secretary for Justice Lam Ting-kwok has repeatedly said that as an international financial and trade center, Hong Kong relies heavily on the free flow of information. On the premise of safeguarding national security, Hong Kong must still consolidate this unique advantage. In other words, as long as foreign media in Hong Kong abide by the law and have no ulterior motives, they can work freely without any problems.
Is it risky for the Wall Street Journal’s Asia executive to move to Singapore? Just look at how Singapore treated foreign media who attacked the government in the past, and you will know that Hong Kong is actually much more tolerant. Back in the day, political strongman Lee Kuan Yew, who had never been afraid of foreign media, once “punished” Time Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, and the Times, which were accused of maliciously criticizing the government, including limiting their circulation to very low numbers. , and even advertisements are not allowed, and some foreign media will eventually bow down.
If the Wall Street Journal’s arrangement is really based on political considerations, as an expert, I hope it will think again and not lose a better regional news gathering base because of its own “illusion.”
Tokito Monogatari
**Blog articles are written at your own responsibility and do not represent the position of our company**
The “pilot trial” of garbage levy has been launched for a week, and various problems have emerged one after another. If the plan is expanded to the whole territory at this time, I dare say that it will be a “big turn off”. The “big boss” of the patriotic camp, Lu Wen-tuan, also wrote a blunt article today saying that it is not appropriate to implement garbage charging at this stage and suggested that the government reconsider whether to postpone or completely stop it. It is difficult to say whether Mr. Lu’s words reflect my grandfather’s thoughts, but I read two editorials in Ta Kung Pao in January and February and found similar views, which is worthy of consideration by senior officials of the Hong Kong government. The government proposed a garbage levy 20 years ago, but the senior officials in the previous administration were too ambitious and underestimated the difficulty and public response, leaving Suzhou shit to the current government. Taking into account the current policy priorities, there seems to be a good chance that the plan will be put on hold.
Lu Wenduan, the “big boss” of the patriotic camp, wrote an article, arguing that the government should reconsider postponing or completely stopping the garbage levy and focus on fighting for the economy. His argument is very similar to two earlier editorials in Ta Kung Pao, which is worth noting.
Lo Man-tuan said in the article that allowing the garbage charging dispute to consume social energy and interfere with the government’s focus on development is not in line with the overall interests and expectations of Hong Kong society, and I believe it is not a situation that the central government wants to see. Maybe he just figured out what grandpa was thinking, or maybe he really “received information” and indirectly reflected grandma’s opinions. I can’t verify it, but based on Mr. Lu’s “track record”, some of his opinions cannot be taken lightly.
I looked through the two editorials on the garbage levy published by Ta Kung Pao last month, and my views were quite similar to those of Mr. Lu. The article published in January said that while dealing with garbage is important, it is not the most urgent compared with developing the economy and solving housing problems. Taking a long-term approach to the garbage problem will help the SAR government concentrate its efforts and prioritize solving the urgent, difficult and worrying problems of the public. This is the same idea as Lu Wen-tuan’s proposal to “focus on economic development as soon as possible and not be bothered by garbage charges.”
Another editorial in “Ta Kung Pao” pointed out that the implementation of the garbage levy has been postponed to August 1. It is not an easy task to make all preparations in the remaining time. What’s more, the government’s work is multifaceted, and fighting for the economy, pursuing development, and replenishing national security shortcomings are the top priorities. Under this situation, the government must distinguish the priorities. Although the editorial did not make it clear, it clearly believed that the garbage levy should be postponed and more important things should be done first.
Mr. Lu and Ta Kung Pao unanimously pointed out that another reason why the plan should be shelved is insufficient preparation. If the basic skills are not yet completed and the plan is pushed forward in a hurry, the results will be difficult to achieve ideal results.
A big question is, the government has been preparing for this plan for 20 years, why is it still kicking the tires? I looked through some information of the former officials in charge and found a common problem: they have high ambitions and low ambitions, underestimate the difficulties and public response, are too influenced by the ideas of environmental groups, and want to rush into action without sufficient conditions.
The first person to propose the concept of garbage levy was Liu Xiudong, Secretary for the Environment, Transport and Works Bureau, in 2005. She was full of ambitions at the time and said that the government was considering legislation to implement waste charging in 2007, which would be followed by a three-month trial period. Her vision is very high, but she seriously underestimates the actual problems. For example, she predicts that by the end of 2006, source separation will be able to process 80% of household waste. But in 2021, the municipal solid waste recycling rate is still only 31%, and most household waste is discarded in landfills.
Wong Kam-sing, who became the Secretary for the Environment in 2012, was also overly optimistic about the situation. In 2013, he said that this plan had the support of the majority of citizens. At the beginning of this year, he still said that seven years ago (that is, in 2017), the garbage levy had received mainstream support from society. , but he did not make it clear whether the so-called “mainstream” includes the grassroots citizens living in Sanwu Buildings and tens of thousands of small and medium-sized restaurants, or whether it is just a small group of elites who do not want to live in the world.
Because he saw the problem as simple, he said in 2018 that the garbage levy could be implemented in 2020, but a year later, he said it would be implemented in 2021. The implementation time of the plan has been continuously delayed, and many supporting facilities are still insufficient. He also admitted that “the bottleneck is the failure to receive enough recycling waste.”
The senior officials in charge of the previous government had too much misconception and miscalculation, and underestimated various technical difficulties and the real reactions of ordinary citizens. This explains why they spent 20 years preparing for the project, only to find that everything was “out of control” when they got there.
The former officials in charge, Liao Xiudong and Huang Jinxing (pictured), both had high expectations for the garbage levy and underestimated the actual difficulties and citizens’ response. As a result, they were not well prepared and threw away the garbage levy as soon as possible.
With the pragmatic attitude of the current government in implementing policies, it should rethink its policy priorities. The issue of garbage levy is not the most urgent, and it must first focus on matters that are more important to people’s livelihood and the economy. Therefore, I estimate that there is a high probability that the government will decide to suspend the garbage levy.
1712719671
#political #considerations #Wall #Street #Journals #Asia #executive #move #Singapore #based #Hong #Kong