By Christopher Mung, the Executive Director of Hong Kong Labour Rights Monitor
A legally registered trade union is preparing to hold its annual general meeting and elect a new executive committee. Yet, before a single vote has been cast, Hong Kong’s security chief has launched a blistering public attack, declaring that the union lacks legitimacy and invoking national security as he issued a chilling threat: “I will come after you.”
In Hong Kong’s already suffocating political climate, it requires little imagination to understand the pressure such remarks place on candidates standing for election, or on members considering whether to attend the meeting at all.
The wrongdoing lies not simply in the words themselves, but in the power behind them.
Chris Tang holds public office. Yet, without identifying any clear legal basis, he has taken it upon himself to pass political judgement on an organisation that is legally registered under Hong Kong law, placing the will of a government minister above the law itself.
Anyone is free to like or dislike the Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA). That is their right. But a cabinet minister is not simply another normal citizen expressing an opinion. When someone who commands the machinery of the state uses a public platform to single out an organisation in this way, the effect is to create an openly hostile political environment and one in which those involved with the union may reasonably fear intimidation, retaliation or worse.
The legitimacy of a trade union is ultimately for the workers and members it represents to decide. So long as it operates within its own constitution and the law, even the Labour Department, which oversees trade union registration, has no licence to interfere in its internal affairs.
So why, then, should Hong Kong’s security chief presume to pass judgement on it?
Such heavy-handed intervention by the state in the internal affairs of a trade union runs directly against the principles of freedom of association and trade union autonomy protected under International Labour Organization Convention No 87. Workers have the right to form organisations freely and to choose their representatives and leaders without political or administrative interference.
Hong Kong, through the international obligations applying to it, has a responsibility to uphold those principles. But its record of breaching international standards is already extensive. Perhaps those in power see little harm in adding another entry to the ledger.
Tang’s criticism of the HKJA for not publicly disclosing the names of those standing for election is particularly perverse. It is a textbook case of blaming the victim.
Over recent years, members of the HKJA have faced repeated surveillance, harassment and intimidation. Threatening messages have reportedly been sent not only to journalists themselves, but also to their family members and employers. Complaints were made to the police, yet no one has been brought to justice.
More troubling still, rather than forcefully condemning such harassment, the Hong Kong government has appeared far more willing to join pro-establishment media in keeping the pressure on the HKJA.
The union has explained clearly why it no longer publishes its candidates’ names in advance: concerns over personal safety. It has nevertheless said it will notify the Trade Union Registry of the new executive committee, as required by law.
There is no requirement under the Trade Unions Ordinance for a union to publicly disclose the names of its executive committee members. The HKJA has broken no rule. And if there were a question of compliance, that would fall within the remit of the Labour Department.
Why, then, is the security chief so concerned?
The irony is difficult to miss. When journalists say they fear for their personal safety, that should surely be a matter of concern to the Security Bureau. Yet Tang appears to have little to say about the threats themselves. Instead, his attention is directed towards the people who say they have been threatened.
More absurd still is the inversion of responsibility at work here. If citizens no longer feel safe simply taking part in a trade union, it is a sign that the city is failing to protect fundamental freedoms. The questions should be directed at those responsible for maintaining public safety.
Instead, the complainants find themselves in the dock.
Those who have raised concerns about intimidation are treated as though they were the ones who had done something wrong.
Tang’s campaign against the HKJA did not begin this week, and his decision to turn up the pressure again on the eve of its annual meeting is unlikely to be a coincidence.
Over the past few years, civil society groups and trade unions have been forced to disband under the weaponisation of the national security law. The method is by now familiar: intimidation and legal uncertainty create risks so severe that organisations are pressured into closing themselves down.
The authorities remove those they regard as troublesome, while avoiding the political cost of openly banning them.
It is an effective tactic. The state does not always need to shut the door itself. Sometimes it is enough to make those inside fear what will happen if they keep it open.
Yet despite years of pressure, the HKJA, which was long regarded by those in power as an irritant, if not an outright enemy has survived.
And perhaps that is precisely what makes it so uncomfortable for the authorities.
In an environment where simply taking part in a trade union can mean surveillance, harassment or even the loss of one’s job, continuing to stand one’s ground demands courage and a willingness to accept personal risk.
The journalists and trade unionists of the HKJA have demonstrated that, even as the space for freedom continues to shrink, there are still people prepared to defend what remains.
And that matters.
Because there is a particular kind of evil that presents itself in the name of national security.
But there is also a particular kind of courage.
It is called standing firm against the wind.
Graphic: Pulse HK News