The Wall Street Journal fires a Hong Kong journalist who headed an association of reporters, setting a dangerous precedent
This story was produced and published by Asia Democracy Chronicles. Photo: Hong Kong Journalists Association chair Selina Cheng. (Photo: Wikicommons / Tong, via Asia Democracy Chronicles)
Since the mass prosecution of pro-democracy figures and the crackdown on civil society began in 2020, few independent trade unions and civil society groups have remained active in Hong Kong.
The Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA) is one of the few still standing, though ongoing discussions persist about whether it can survive. Ever since the Anti-Extradition Bill Movement in 2019, HKJA has been under enormous political pressure, facing criticism and attacks from government officials and pro-government supporters.
Despite the challenging environment, journalists in Hong Kong have continued to demonstrate resilience and determination. In June, amid political pressure – including the resignation of two candidates immediately after the election and anonymous warnings discouraging its 300 or so members from attending the Annual General Meeting – HKJA elected a new executive committee. Selina Cheng, a journalist with the Wall Street Journal at the time, was elected as the new chair.
Although it had been anticipated that the 56-year-old HKJA would continue to face criticism and attack from the authorities, people hoped that it would be able to maintain its role as a journalist’s trade union as long as possible under the new leadership.
But no one predicted that the first challenge to be faced by the union’s new leaders would not come from the government. Instead, it was from Cheng’s employer, one of the most famous and respected media outlets in the world.
On July 18, in her first press briefing as the HKJA new chairperson, Cheng announced that she had been dismissed by the Wall Street Journal after refusing her supervisor’s request to withdraw from the HKJA’s chair election. She mentioned that her supervisor stated that Wall Street Journal staff should not advocate for press freedom in “a place like Hong Kong.”
Cheng’s dismissal shocked many, as few expected that a prominent international media outlet would terminate a reporter simply for exercising her right to participate in a trade union. While many trade unions in Hong Kong have been forced to disband under political pressure since 2021, participating in such remains legal and is – at least on paper – still protected by domestic law.
Part IVA of Hong Kong’s Employment Ordinance stipulates that every employee has the right to become a member or an officer of a trade union. If an employer or anyone representing the employer punishes an employee for participating in a trade union, it constitutes an offense.
Moreover, participation in trade unions is recognized internationally as a fundamental human right. It is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 23) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Article 8).
As a media outlet, the Wall Street Journal should be well aware of this. There is also no justification for a private corporation to dismiss employees for participating in a trade union.
So now the question is: Why then did the Journal do what it did, knowing it would create controversy and tarnish its reputation?
Pressure on the press
Based in New York in the United States, the Wall Street Journal is a division of Dow Jones, which in turn is part of the media empire of Australian-born tycoon Rupert Murdoch.
While it specializes in financial and economic stories, the Journal covers a wide range of other topics, and maintains bureaus across the globe. Its China bureau, headed by Canadian journalist Jonathan Cheng, relies on a “team of more than a dozen researchers and correspondents in Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Taipei, Singapore, and New York.”
Selina Cheng, 32, was born and raised in Hong Kong. She had been covering China’s lucrative EV industry for the Journal when the paper terminated her services. Despite her dismissal sparking criticism from civil-society groups worldwide – including IAPE TNG/CWA 1096, the trade union representing Dow Jones employees – the Journal has refused to comment on the case, beyond saying that Cheng’s dismissal was part of a “restructuring.”
Many have been left unconvinced by that claim. Indeed, for most observers, what Cheng’s firing highlights yet again is the increasingly repressive environment in Hong Kong in recent years, with not only local media and reporters being targeted, but also growing government hostility toward international media.
One of the government’s complaints about the HKJA, in fact, was that it had become a foreigners’ lair, which is inaccurate, to say the least.
At the same time, Hong Kong has been denying entry to more journalists from overseas in recent years. Since 2018, several international reporters, including those from The New York Times, Bloomberg News, the Economist, and the Financial Times, have been barred from entering Hong Kong.
In September 2023, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) revealed that two Japanese journalists and a U.S. journalist were denied entry without explanation, although the global media rights group noted that all three had covered the 2019 protests. And just last April, an RSF representative was detained for six hours at Hong Kong International Airport before being expelled.
The Hong Kong government has also adopted an increasingly aggressive stance toward commentaries and reports from international media. It frequently issues strongly worded statements condemning outlets that report negative news about the government, particularly on political matters.
For instance, in March 2024, the government condemned the U.K.-based The Times for “generating panic among members of the public” after it published a report on Hong Kong’s new national security law. The government criticized the report’s headline “Hong Kongers to be jailed for keeping old newspapers” as misleading.
And yet, Hong Kong does have the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, passed in March, which includes a new offense of possessing a publication with seditious intent. The government has yet to clearly define what constitutes “seditious intent,” but on Sept. 19, a Hong Kong court handed down a 14-year jail sentence to a 27-year-old Hong Konger for wearing a T-shirt and a mask that had protest slogans on them.
A devastating letdown
Yet while it is clear that the Hong Kong government is attempting to silence international media by exerting pressure, many had expected that outlets like the 135-year-old Wall Street Journal would not bend easily, considering its global standing and experience in dealing with such challenges.
Unfortunately, the Journal’s actions suggest otherwise. While it was loudly expressing its support for Evan Gershkovich, a Journal journalist jailed in Russia before being finally released in August, it was firing the head of a journalists’ union in Hong Kong, a city facing increasing repression.
The Journal’s decision is especially disappointing in the context of the ongoing erosion of press freedom in Hong Kong. In recent years, Hong Kong has witnessed the dismantling of independent media outlets such as Apple Daily and Stand News. Apple Daily founder Jimmy Lai, and six of the outlet’s veteran journalists have been imprisoned for more than 1,100 days now.
This August, two former editors in chief of Stand News were convicted of sedition. Nearly all mainstream media outlets have either been brought under government control or compromised their journalistic integrity by cooperating with authorities to disseminate political propaganda or by avoiding reporting on sensitive topics.
More troubling is the Sept. 16 revelation by HKJA that dozens of Hong Kong journalists, their families, landlords, schools, and private businesses have been facing online or in-person harassment and intimidation since June. Among them is Cheng, as well as Tom Grundy, the founder of Hong Kong Free Press, who told Reuters that his landlord received threatening letters, urging them to evict him.
These are undeniably the most challenging times yet for the media in Hong Kong’s history. Yet some journalists continue to work bravely, finding ways to carry on. They expect to face pressure from the authorities, but not from international media outlets.
What is even more alarming is when an international media outlet, which people usually hold to a higher standard for upholding human rights, begins to compromise to avoid conflict with the government, and even in ways that may sacrifice its principles or undermine others’ human rights.
This sets a very dangerous precedent, encouraging other media outlets and private sector organizations to disregard fundamental human rights. The law could also embolden the government to exert further pressure on the private sector, pushing multinational corporations to cooperate with government demands.
The Wall Street Journal owes an explanation to Hong Kongers, not just to preserve its own credibility, but to uphold the global standards of press freedom and integrity that it has long championed.
