October, 2006

The Verdict of Patriotic Journalist Ching Cheong

Rose Wu

Ching Cheong, the chief China correspondent for the Singaporean newspaper The Straits Times, was sentenced to five years in jail by a Beijing court on Aug. 31 after 16 months in detention. He was also stripped of his political rights for a year and had personal property worth 300,000 yuan (US$37,435) confiscated. Ching's conviction and sentence said Ching had provided "state secrets" to an institute in Taiwan during his posting in Taiwan between April 2004 and April 2005, knowing that the institute was an intelligence agency. His family has filed an appeal against the verdict.

Ching's case has sparked an outcry from journalists and human rights groups. Hong Kong Journalists Association chairwoman Serenade Woo Lai-wan criticised the trial as it was not an open trial, she said, and the definition of what constitutes a state secret remains unclear. She warned that reporters could be arrested on any pretext and the verdict would destroy people's confidence in press freedom on the mainland. In addition, the association also commented that it was against international law for China to detain Ching for 16 months without a trial and to deny him visits by his family and access to legal services. Ching's trial is a setback for those who want to believe China's pledges that it is moving towards a society based on the rule of law.

What is worrisome is that Ching's verdict has become a dangerous warning for many journalists who are not clear about what is the mainland's definition of state secrets. If such a patriot as Ching, who is experienced in handling the mainland context, can get into trouble, then the risks faced by other journalists who are less informed can only be even greater. In fact, Ching is not the only journalist who has recently earned the wrath of the authorities. The New York Times researcher Zhao Yan was prosecuted for leaking state secrets. Although cleared of the charge, he has been convicted and jailed on another dubious charge for fraud.

As we look at Ching's past life, it is clearly marked by high ideals and a strong passion for his country. Ching's friends said his love for China dates back to the 1960s when he was studying at St. Paul's College in Hong Kong, an elite school in the Mid-Levels. Timothy Ha Wing-ho, who was the college principal from 1968 to March this year, described Ching as a principled person with high ideals and patriotic fervour that was evident in his secondary school years.

A year after graduating from the University of Hong Kong in 1973 Ching joined the pro-Beijing Wen Wei Po as a reporter after shunning more lucrative options in the government and business sectors. As a young man, he was paid only about one-third of the salary then earned by a civil servant with a university degree.

According to his friend Kwan Pan-fong, Ching's sentiment toward China was also indicated in his support for the "revolutionary causes" of the communist regime, so much so that he defended the infamous Great Leap Forward from 1958 to 1961, saying that it was a bold decision which it was hoped would speed up the country's economic development.

In 1981, Ching and his wife Lau Man-yee, who is also a journalist, moved to Beijing as correspondents for the Wen Wei Po. Their close friends told the media that during their time in Beijing the couple maintained a simple lifestyle in order to save money for the newspaper.

However, the crackdown of the student movement in 1989 changed the fate of Ching, who was seen as a rising star in the pro-Beijing establishment. A month after the Tiananmen Square massacre on June 4, 1989, Ching, then the deputy chief editor of Wen Wei Po, resigned in protest along with 39 of his colleagues. They then founded Contemporary magazine in October 1989 which held a critical stance toward Beijing. Because of a lack of money, however, the magazine closed in 1995. He then joined Singapore's The Straits Times as a senior correspondent specialising in mainland news.

Allen Lee Peng-fei, a Hong Kong deputy to the National People's Congress (NPC), publicly said that he does not believe Ching would engage in spying against his country for material gain. Lee's disbelief is shared by many people who have known Ching for decades.

In fact, very rarely has a campaign like that sparked by Ching's injustice been joined by people from different sides of the political spectrum. Four hundred people, including former Highways Dept. Director Mak Chai-kwong and Director of Broadcasting Chu Pui-hing, signed an open letter to President Hu Jintao organised by a group of University of Hong Kong alumni in a bid to free Ching that appeared in several Chinese-language newspapers in June last year. In their letter, they wrote, "In our impression, Ching Cheong is an upright and sincere person leading a simple life. He has had a passion for both China and Hong Kong for many years. As a professional journalist, he has shown concern for and written many reports on the development and unification of China. We sincerely hope that in handling this case full and impartial consideration should be given to his past record of love for and contributions to China, including Hong Kong." In addition, the Hong Kong Journalists Association has also collected 770 signatures of serving and former journalists to support another campaign urging Ching's release.

Moreover, the Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor (HKHRM) will take Ching's case to the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and to the special envoy overseeing China's freedom of expression. It is the first time that the United Nations has been asked to intervene in a mainland court conviction involving a Hong Kong man. The director of HKHRM, Law Yuk-kai, said that it is important to remind China that, as a member of the United Nations, it has the obligation to answer to the international community and to give a clear account on how Ching has breached the country's spying law. It is also important whether Ching has received a fair trial.

As we approach China's National Day celebration on Oct. 1, I just want to ask our leaders that, if they demand the people to love our country, how can they throw such a patriotic person like Ching Cheong into prison?