While a large number of Hong Kong residents have fled the city since the implementation of the National Security Law, several independent media outlets and some pro-democracy figures have decided to remain, becoming targets of the regime. The Hong Kong government is suspected of using public power to impose additional taxes on independent journalists, while former pro-democracy district councilors have been fired and had their performances withdrawn by theater companies, allegedly due to being on the blacklist. This station interviewed several victims of "China-style repression" in Hong Kong, detailing how they continue to uphold their beliefs despite these difficult circumstances.
Cheng Ka-ju, who has served as chairperson of the Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA) for less than a year, continues to be a target. Last year, she and dozens of other journalists were systematically harassed, stalked, and threatened. This year, she and 20 people from at least eight independent media outlets and organizations were the subject of an audit by the Inland Revenue Department, which reviewed their income and tax payments going back seven years.
Zheng Jiaru: It is unfortunate that my family was implicated because of my identity as a journalist
Cheng Ka-ju told our station that seven years ago, she was still working at "Hong Kong 01," earning a mere HK$18,000 a month. The Inland Revenue Department recently conducted a surprise review of her taxes for that year and, without any evidence, arbitrarily increased her annual income from HK$230,000 to HK$630,000, demanding she pay a substantial back tax. Cheng Ka-ju stated that the Inland Revenue Department has the power to conduct random checks on Hong Kong residents' tax status, but Hong Kong has thousands of media workers, with independent media outlets and journalists making up only a small minority, and those being audited fall squarely within this range. She also stated that she was the only journalist whose parents were also audited. Cheng Ka-ju suspects that her identity made her and her family targets.
Cheng Ka-ju said, "Of course, I have doubts about whether the IRD's actions are related to my position at the Hong Kong Journalists Association. However, the IRD has not explained, and I have no way of knowing their reason and motive for checking my and my parents' taxes. This isn't the first time my family has been affected. Last September, they were also affected by the harassment and intimidation targeting journalists and their families. I can only say that the current situation we face is very unfortunate. Before, journalists didn't have to worry about whether their families would be affected by our work, but now we do. This will definitely hinder journalists from doing their work with peace of mind."
Zheng Jiaru said that the pattern of suppression of independent journalists is constantly changing. Standing at the forefront of the storm, she did not back down because of all the suppression. She has registered to participate in the executive committee election of the Hong Kong Journalists Association next month, running for re-election as chairman and continuing to speak for the Hong Kong press.
Affected journalists: If harassment and stalking are ineffective, we will use public power to suppress them in a two-pronged approach.
Like Cheng Jiaru, an independent journalist going by the pseudonym Chris was harassed and threatened last year and again this year under a tax audit. He stated that the low salaries and benefits of Hong Kong journalists are well known, and independent journalists earn even less. He recalled seeing the five-digit back-tax notice from the tax bureau, and exclaimed, "I wish I could make that much money!" He found the authorities' actions absurd and was outraged at their use of public power against journalists. He felt wronged and framed, and that this was clearly a government action targeting independent journalists.
Chris said, "Last year, when we (several independent media journalists) were stalked and harassed, there was no definitive evidence that this was official pressure. We could only question how these people were able to obtain personal information that only the government possessed. This time, using the IRD to conduct tax audits and recover debts is clearly the regime's machine targeting us (independent journalists), targeting those the government dislikes. It seems they (the regime) have a set of tactics, both overt and covert. When stalking and harassment didn't work, they resorted to using public agencies to target us. I've heard that independent media outlets were previously visited by the Companies Registry and the Labour Department for information checks, and now the IRD is involved. It's clear there's a systematic and standardized approach, with pressure being gradually increased."
He said that everyone who chooses to be an independent journalist in Hong Kong today has already been mentally prepared to face trouble from the authorities. Before being arrested or prosecuted, he will stay at his post and report the truth.
Affected journalists: Seeing Hong Kong's decline makes me feel more sad than angry
An independent journalist, going by the pseudonym A, was also a victim of this tax audit. He has already appealed the five-figure tax bill. He told our station that the IRD's current practice is to impose a fine before conducting an investigation. Regardless of whether his appeal is successful, he must pay the fine first. He also said that he has already spent several thousand dollars to obtain his bank account records from seven years ago to prove his innocence. He described it as a 30-point slap before even seeing the court, and lamented how Hong Kong has fallen to this point.
Reporter A said, "After this incident, I felt more sad than unhappy, because using the excuse of tax evasion to pursue tax repayments and suppress them is a tactic China often uses to deal with dissidents, and we are not unfamiliar with it. Compared to China, where Hong Kong is free, civilized, and democratic, the regime is resorting to such tactics to target ordinary citizens. It's really sad, and I lament why Hong Kong has become like this."
He said the incident had not dampened his ambition to continue working as a journalist. Instead, he felt that amid the suppression of the media and civil society, journalists should persevere in their work. If journalists retreat in the face of suppression, no one will speak up for ordinary citizens who are being oppressed, and no one will speak publicly about the injustices they face.
Chen Jianqin: Although weak, my words are not in vain.
In addition to the media, the pro-democracy camp that remained in Hong Kong was also targeted by the authorities. Former pro-democracy district councilor Chan Kim-kam earlier disclosed on her Facebook page that she was suspected of being suppressed. She said in response to our inquiry that she had originally participated in the troupe's performance at the end of May, but the troupe suddenly received a request that they could not use the government venue unless she was replaced, forcing her to withdraw from the performance. On the same day, she also received a notice of dismissal from the part-time lecturer college on the grounds that several senior executives of the school had received a simplified Chinese complaint letter about her. She was only notified of the decision to dismiss her, but was not informed of the content of the complaint. Chan Kim-kam said that the two incidents that occurred on the same day were not isolated incidents. She criticized the school's practice as unreasonable and proved that the blacklist system was already in operation in Hong Kong.
Chen Jianqin said, "I feel the suppression is escalating. Last year, I was still able to perform at government venues, but this year, when I saw my name on the performer list, I said no. This proves that Chen Jianqin has been banned from using government venues. Even if it's not public, I believe the government has a blacklist. Such a list will create barriers for the arts community, restricting who can collaborate with them. The school incident is even more obvious. Firing a teacher based on a complaint letter that can't be made public is unfair to the person, not the matter, and violates procedure. It's intended to erase Chen Jianqin and my name from society."
Chan Kin-kam stated that her background as a pro-democracy district councilor, coupled with her arrest under Article 23 of the Basic Law during the June 4th Incident, has made her a sensitive figure in Hong Kong today, even without being charged. Her experience participating in non-political activities and work is not an isolated case; there are many similar victims in Hong Kong today.
Chen Jianqin said, "It affects not only me, but many others. Anyone with a history of political or social activism, or someone who has been arrested or imprisoned for social activism, will face similar challenges in reintegrating into Hong Kong society. This is the impact of Article 23. Article 23 has created an atmosphere of fear in society. Under the culture of reporting and complaints, many organizations and companies will immediately exclude anyone who appears to be linked to national security or has been labeled as sensitive. This is a disguised deprivation of our right to participate equally in society."
Chen Jianqin stated that, as she stated in a Facebook post, "Though my power is weak and my words are not weighted, I will not remain silent." She will not allow herself to disappear from society just because she was fired or retired. She will not remain silent or anonymous when faced with injustice.
