Opinion / James Chambers
News dispatch
Newspaper headlines rarely capture the whole story. This fact is highlighted by reports about an announcement by The New York Times that the company is moving a third of its staff away from Hong Kong because of the city’s new national security law, which has the potential to severely undermine free speech. Actually, only its digital team is moving; it is being dispatched to the newspaper’s Seoul office. Its reporters are staying put, along with the sales and marketing teams. This business-continuity strategy will ensure that The New York Times website remains operational around the clock even if the authorities were to shut down its Asia headquarters in Hong Kong.
It’s a worrying development for Hong Kong but not yet a clear sign about the law’s actual effect on press freedom. The New York Times believes that its coverage of Hong Kong is likely to increase. Besides media companies, most other international businesses are taking a wait-and-see approach, according to a poll of members released this week by Hong Kong’s American Chamber of Commerce (Amcham). About two thirds of firms have no plans to leave Hong Kong just yet but plenty will be quietly drawing up similar contingency measures.
Although the Amcham survey reveals little optimism about Hong Kong’s business prospects, some respondents do welcome an end to last year’s street protests and anticipate an influx of Chinese investment. The biggest concern right now is the security law’s ambiguity: getting to work might no longer be a problem but business executives are less sure about what they can and cannot say when they get there. Uncertainty about the law’s application and enforcement will have to be addressed if Hong Kong is to remain an international business hub, as well as an Asia HQ for foreign media. For now we all have to read between the lines.