How to sell Hong Kong overseas

A constant problem for Hong Kong has been its inability to project a positive image overseas. Prior to the 1997 handover the prophets of doom predicted the failure of the one country-two systems plan for the future. Some 28 years later they are still proven wrong. 

But in the run-up to the handover there was a concerted plan on the part of the government to sway public opinion both locally and overseas to have faith in the future. The unseeable future was hard to sell.

But a small task force within the government’s Information Services Department (ISD), the Overseas Public Relations sub division (OPRS), worked closely with the Trade Department’s overseas offices, The Hong Kong Trade Development Council, The Hong Kong Tourist Association, Cathay Pacific Airways and other similar-minded bodies with international connections to speak with the same tongue – Hong Kong has a bright future. It was known as the “Hong Kong family” and co-ordinated at the time by trade officer Tony Miller.

OPRS fed some 300 foreign journalists based in Hong Kong at the time with daily updates on progress of the negotiations on its future under the Chinese flag and developments within the city. It also invited another 300 journalists a year to visit Hong Kong and see for themselves how the city operated and to hear the views of the city’s public and private leaders on the destiny of Hong Kong.

Running parallel to the OPRS operations which concentrated solely on journalists, ISD also had a visits section which sponsored foreign government officials and business operatives and similar progams were devised for them. 

Overall, the operation was successful. At first it was hit with pessimism and doubts persisted on Hong Kong’s future. But at the end of the day, much of that pessimism had diminished, except for the hardliners seeking independence for Hong Kong or retention of the status quo.

Fast forward to 2025 and still there are doubts about Hong Kong’s future fuelled by the United States and its four eyes alliances – Canada, Australia, New Zealand and United Kingdom. The objective of the US is to weaken China’s rapid development by undermining the goose that lays the golden egg – Hong Kong.

Politicians and government officials in the US and UK continually lambast Hong Kong and China with totally false narratives carried in their national newspapers and tv networks. But rebuttals by Hong Kong officials and spokesmen for Beijing’s foreign ministry are being denied publication by the foreign media. The nationals in these western countries hear only one side of the story – their local government’s side – and are being purposely deprived of the real stories of China and Hong Kong.

Hong Kong’s Chief Executive John Lee has repeatedly called for more positive stories about Hong Kong. He even raised the issue in his latest policy address. He announced a new initiative to support local media organizations in expanding their international networks, framing it as a key part of the strategy to "tell good Hong Kong stories" to the world.

He said local media already possess established networks with domestic and international outlets, and by strengthening these connections, they can more effectively share positive narratives about the city and telling the "good and true" Hong Kong stories.

The Central government obviously shares this view and has appointed a senior editor in Beijing to the Hong Kong and Macao Liaison Office to improve the mainland/Hong Kong narratives.

The deputy editor-in-chief of China Daily in Beijing, Sun Shangwu, 56, took up his appointment in Hong Kong during the golden week holidays and according to local media “Sun will greatly enhance the liaison office’s footing in the English media world, as Beijing seeks to improve China’s narrative in Hong Kong and the world,”

The job is not an easy one. There is an abundance of good writers who write plenty of positive stories about Hong Kong. The problem is placing the stories.

The deciding factor in what appears in newspapers rests with the editor or editorial board, depending on the size of the publication. And the criteria which the editor uses rests with the political bias of the publication. In other words, the media is run by governments and politicians. They have a brotherly relationship: you scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours.

So, it doesn’t matter how well or positive a story is written, it will not see the light of day if it Pruns contrary to the policy of the publication. It will be spiked.

At a Hong Kong British Chamber of Commerce (Britcham) summit in Hong Kong last week, the CE outlined many plans the government and private sector are doing to attract more businesses, financial institutions and mega events to Hong Kong. To illustrate his point, he said that earlier in the month the Office for Attracting Strategic Enterprises (OASES), welcomed another 18 new companies, including three of the world's top 10 pharmaceutical corporations to Hong Kong. The foreigners working and living in Hong Kong become our best ambassadors in telling the real Hong Kong story back to their homes. It is third party endorsement.

For the future, by all means continue to sponsor journalists and business leaders to Hong Kong. Increase speaking engagements to targeted audiences overseas. But the only way to get a positive reaction to Hong Kong stories is to convince the foreign governments and politicians that there is nothing wrong with Hong Kong so stop peddling negative narratives. Only then will the editors accept positive Hong Kong stories.

Unwittingly, US President Trump is helping us achieve that goal. His unpopular wishy-washy policies have turned the media and public at large against him to such an extent that his allies are now looking for more trustworthy partners – China and Hong Kong. And that is our leverage.

Mark Pinkstone

Mark Pinkstone

** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **

The two United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteurs who expressed “grave concern” over the barring to practice solicitor Kevin Yam Kin Fung are on very shaky grounds, claiming there was no violation to the Law Society’s statutes or code of conduct.

Yet, the society’s Principles of Professional Conduct (Rule 2 of the Solicitors’ Practice Rules, Cap 159) clearly states that a solicitor shall not permit to be done anything which compromises or impairs “his reputation or the reputation of his profession.”

Yam is currently in Melbourne, Australia, after fleeing Hong Kong from prosecution relating to charges on sedition and collusion with foreign forces. The Hong Kong government has offered HK$1 million bounty for information relating to his arrest.

On January 6, this year, a formal complaint was filed by Secretary for Justice, Paul Lam Ting-kwok with the Law Society of Hong Kong alleging “conduct unbecoming a solicitor” by Yam. The charges stemmed primarily from statements Kevin Yam made to the US Congress’ Congressional Executive Commission on China (CECC) hearing last May. Lam’s complaint claimed that their acts brought the profession into dispute and undermined public confidence in Hong Kong’s judicial system and rule of law. In July, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found Yam guilty of professional misconduct, struck him off the Roll of Solicitors, and ordered him to pay HK$816,600 in legal costs.

Former Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma, wrote in his foreword to the Law Society’s Guidebook that: “The public looks to lawyers to fulfill the role of the administration of justice and is one that requires a combination of competence, proper conduct and professional ethics.”

Key to Yam’s crusade is his seeking support from US congress members for sanctions against Hong Kong officials and in particular the judiciary, including judges and prosecutors.

The two UN legal experts were Margaret Satterthwaite, special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers and Irene Khan, special rapporteur on the protection and promotion of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. On October 3, they issued a joint statement expressing concern that Yam had been struck off the Roll of Solicitors “without having breached any of the Law Society’s statutes or code of conduct, and by a tribunal appointed by the Chief Justice.”

What the so-called experts failed to acknowledge was that Yam was bordering on treason by disrespecting the judiciary and the rule of law in Hong Kong by asking the US to impose sanctions on judges and prosecutors. And he was struck off the Roll by his peers in the Law Society and not by a tribunal appointed by the Chief Justice. His behaviour was definitely unprofessional by bringing the entire legal profession in Hong Kong into disrepute.

But the report itself was a flimsy piece of editorial, hastily prepared as if something had to be said to appease the human rights lobby. They claimed, for example, that for the Secretary for Justice to make a complaint to the Law Society was a conflict of interest. However, Lam defended his actions saying that the acts by Yam had undermined the judicial system and overall interests of Hong Kong. “As the guardian of public interest in the proper administration of justice and upholding the rule of law, I am duty bound to defend Hong Kong’s rule of law and due administration of justice,” he said.

UN special rapporteurs are not staff of the UN, but rather volunteers appointed by the UN Human Rights Council to investigate abuses in a private capacity. They carry no weight, and their findings are purely personal opinions. So much so that the press release issued under the banner of the Office of the High Commissioner of the UN Human Rights (OHCHR) carried a proviso that any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the UN or OHCHR.

However, they do attract attention in the media which has the ability to make a mountain out of a mole hill. For the media, sensationalism is the name of the game to boost readership regardless of the subject matter warranting any merit.