In a chilling development for what remains of Hong Kong’s independent media, journalists have reported a systematic campaign of intimidation and “obvious” stalking. However, attempts by the city’s leading press union to seek official clarification have been met with a stinging rebuke from the Security Bureau, which dismissed the concerns as “shadow-boxing” and “malicious speculation.”
The latest harassment centres on InMedia, a prominent independent digital outlet. The campaign reportedly began in February via the encrypted messaging app Telegram. Reporters received a series of menacing messages ordering the outlet to “shut up shop” by 30 June, a date heavy with symbolism, marking both the eve of the 1997 handover to Britain and the anniversary of the 2020 National Security Law’s enactment.
By late March, the harassment moved from the digital realm to the streets. Two reporters covering a public inquiry into a fatal fire at Wang Fuk Court, which claimed 168 lives, noticed they were being tailed by unidentified men. Notably, the stalking was not discreet; the followers ensured they were seen, a “grey zone” tactic frequently employed by security apparatuses in mainland China to exert psychological pressure and provoke self-censorship. The reporters later received messages detailing their precise movements, confirming they were under active surveillance.
A Culture of Impunity
This is far from an isolated incident. In 2023, staff at the non-profit Hong Kong Free Press (HKFP) reported near-identical stalking. In both instances, police reports were filed, yet investigations have vanished into a bureaucratic void.
The Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA) issued a formal statement on Monday, condemning the tactics. “The objective of such stalking is to manufacture a ‘chilling effect’,” the union stated. “By making journalists acutely aware they are being watched, the authorities or those acting for them effectively shackle the freedom of the press without ever making an arrest.”
Bureau Accuses Union of “Rumour-mongering”
In a letter to the Security Bureau dated 5 April, the HKJA requested a straightforward assurance: whether the government’s law enforcement agencies have been conducting surveillance or stalking the journalists.
The government’s response was notably hostile. While the Bureau maintained that police “investigate all reports according to the law,” it reserved its strongest language for the HKJA itself. A spokesperson “strongly condemned” the union for suggesting state involvement, labelling the inquiry “groundless” and “detrimental to the professional image of the journalism industry.”
The Bureau insisted that previous government statements on the matter were already “clear,” despite the union’s counter-claim that the authorities have consistently avoided a direct denial of surveillance activities.
“At a Loss”
The HKJA expressed “deep regret” at the Bureau’s combative stance, noting that the government had interpreted a legitimate plea for protection as a political provocation.
“The Bureau has chosen to shoot the messenger,” a spokesperson for the union said. “By failing to provide a clear denial and instead attacking those who raise the alarm, the government does nothing to dispel public suspicion or safeguard the constitutional right to a free press.”
As Hong Kong’s position in global press freedom rankings continues its freefall, the InMedia case serves as a stark reminder: for those still reporting in the city, the “new normal” involves not just legal threats, but the constant, unnerving presence of a shadow.