“All for doing a job as a journalist” was the immediate response from the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) editor-in-chief when one of the company’s journalists, Evan Gershkovich, was charged with violating espionage laws and sentenced to 16 years in prison by Russian authorities.
We sincerely applaud WSJ’s unequivocal opposition to Russian authorities’ unlawful and arbitrary trial of American journalist Evan Gershkovich. However, it’s baffling that within the same media organization and under the same employer, there is apparent opposition to their journalist’s dedication to defending press freedom through a union, resulting in what looks to be a heartless dismissal in Hong Kong.
On July 17, Selina Cheng, who had been elected chair of the Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA) only two weeks before, was informed of her immediate dismissal by her employer, WSJ. Restructuring was the explanation cited. However, according to Cheng, the restructuring inside the Hong Kong office began in May of this year, at which time she was told that her position would be retained and that her reporting work was highly valued.
Meanwhile, during Cheng’s campaign for the HKJA chair position, a few weeks before her dismissal, one of her supervisors asked her to withdraw from the union election, stating that her roles as a WSJ reporter and union head were incompatible. Cheng further revealed that her supervisor advised that WSJ staff should not advocate for press freedom in places like Hong Kong, since they differ from Western countries where press freedom is more established.
Cheng’s firing raises suspicions that WSJ used “restructuring” as an excuse to dismiss her after failing to pressure her to withdraw from the union election. If true, this behavior is unconscionable.
Participation in unions is a fundamental human right protected by Hong Kong law and international human rights and labor conventions. No employer may infringe on this essential right.
According to the Hong Kong Employment Ordinance, all employees have the right to join unions and serve as union officers. If an employer terminates or punishes an employee for exercising these rights, it is a criminal offense under the law.
Furthermore, the International Labor Organization (ILO) Conventions No. 87 and 98 outline provisions regarding collective bargaining rights and the freedom to form unions. Employers cannot impose a condition of employment based on an employee’s consent not to join a union or hold union positions.
Furthermore, the incident has dealt another blow to Hong Kong’s already severely limited press freedom. Aside from advocating for the rights of industry professionals, the HKJA has continuously championed press freedom, distinguishing itself from traditional labor unions. Over the years, the HKJA has condemned violations of journalists’ rights to report, media self-censorship, and political intervention in press freedom. They had also issued an annual report on press freedom indicators for years, monitoring the city’s press freedom.
Since the enactment of the national security law, government officials have viewed the HKJA unfavorably, making disparaging remarks about it on occasion. The HKJA has been facing various obstacles even when organizing ordinary activities and striving to survive in difficult circumstances. WSJ’s abrupt dismissal of the HKJA chair strikes another blow against Hong Kong’s already beleaguered press freedom, worsening an already difficult position.
Press freedom is a fundamental human right that applies regardless of borders. We should all endeavor to protect this basic liberty. Rather than confining advocacy for journalistic freedom to established regions, we should focus our effort and support on areas under threat. Despite intense pressure, some dedicated journalists in Hong Kong still stand firm and actively contribute to safeguarding press freedom. Whatever the reasons, we should never “punish” them for their commitment to press freedom.
Cheng’s firing has sparked widespread outrage in Hong Kong and around the world, particularly given that it came from a globally recognized outlet like the Wall Street Journal. WSJ management has not yet responded to this matter. We call for WSJ management to provide a thorough explanation soon and retract their erroneous decision.