Politics in print

Last semester, the student-run Trinity Times published a piece entitled, “Opinion: The Bond Between China and Hong Kong are Akin to That of a Mother and Her Son.” As a member of Trinity College, as well as a student of political science, I was horrified upon reading it. The article implicitly supports violating Hong Kong’s ‘one country, two systems’ status by promoting a mother-child narrative that is, quite literally CCP (Chinese Communist Party) propaganda to justify reunification. The article reduces a complex inter-governmental conflict to a trivial family drama, and, most worryingly, it jeopardizes the safety of many diasporic communities across campus. Although campus newspapers are an integral part of student life, their power can be manipulated when journalistic procedures go unchecked. When students consume their content, consciously or not, papers have the potential to influence their perspective on culture and society, leading to some possibly becoming targets of political assault. Ultimately, this is a prime demonstration of the necessity of journalistic integrity among campus newspapers, especially when exploring socio-political issues with tangible implications for members across the UofT community. 

“The bond between China and Hong Kong is comparable to that of an abducted child who has been restored to its mother.” -—Trinity Times, 2022 

Trinity Times flippantly exploits propagandist narratives to promote the breach of Hong Kong’s semi-autonomous status. The article uses language verbatim to that of CCP leader, Xi Jinping, who in his speech during the 20th anniversary of Hong Kong’s handover, describes the city as a “long-separated child coming back to the warm embrace of his mother.” This long-standing metaphorical language posits Hong Kong as a naive kid who makes rash decisions and is incapable of self-determination, while China as a wise and magnanimous parental figure. The CCP weaponizes this infamous analogy to justify the reunification of the two. More recently, it explains China’s increasing incursions in the internal affairs of Hong Kong that are 30 years premature to the British’s 50-year agreement of ensuring the city a high degree of autonomy that was enshrined pre-handover. 

The author fails to acknowledge any specific political events that have taken place since the 1997 handover, especially some glitter-clad elephants in the room: the 2014 protests for universal suffrage, the 2019 protests against the Extradition Bill, and the subsequent mass emmigration of citizens, which demonstrate whether many feel they are being reunited or abducted. With more than 113,000 residents emigrating from 2019 to 2022, according to government figures, the year-on-year drop between mid-2021 and mid-2022 was the largest percentage decline since records began in 1961. 

Upon removing the analogy from the inflated language, instead of the sweet family reunion that the author wants readers to imagine, the piece reaches a rather sinister conclusion, as the writer implies Hong Kong’s submission to authoritarianism is inevitable. While it is true that China has been a victim of imperialism in the past and should pursue post-colonial discourse, it does not negate the role of China’s present violence. 

“The child has lived abroad with a wealthy family, who used to look down on the poor, for a long time and has adapted different thinking and behaviour.” — Trinity Times, 2022 

Aside from the reckless exploitation of propagandist narratives, unproven statements are delivered like facts to diminish Hong Kong’s crisis of autonomy. The author defames a distinct and legitimate cultural identity, reducing it to nothing more than elitism and arrogance. Hong Kong’s culture is fundamentally different that of the mainland; under British rule, citizens experienced different ways of life which included greater freedom of speech and the press. This makes it difficult for Hong Kongers to imagine their lives under reunification. The city largely governs itself with its own currency, passport, and judicial systems, unlike typical Chinese cities in the country. Instead it is a territory of unique sovereign power. 

The briefest research as to why some Hong Kongers are against reunification, would lead to the concern of human rights. For many, Hong Kong’s independence day from colonial rule on July 1 is rarely a celebration among civilians; instead, it is a sombre moment of allyship to remember those who have fallen during the Tiananmen Square Massacre, the Uyghur genocide, or those in Taiwan who face missile threats. Now, under the National Security Law, the government has banned vigils for Tiananmen victims. Since the enactment of the 2020 law, pro-democracy newspapers have been forcibly shut down, protestors have been arrested, and new pro-Beijing curriculums have been implemented across multiple levels of education. 

To present a political issue with severe implications for people of varying Sinophone backgrounds as simply familial conflict is not only lazy and neglectful; it demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding towards the topic that the author tries to imply authority on. It spreads misinformation across campus, which could alter unsuspecting student readers’ political perceptions. 

“A sibling rivalry between [Shenzhen, Guangzhou, and Hong Kong] could escalate into a fight, reopening the pain already fossilized in their bones. But it passes: the brothers have too much in common – “we both speak Cantonese, we both like making soup, and we both like drinking tea and eating dim sum” – and it is with their similarities does this bond, once strained, begin to flourish again.” — Trinity Times, 2022 

As pretty as the article’s prose may be, the article contains a conflation of the nation and the state—a rookie mistake that any political science student would have been brutally scolded for by their TA. It is undeniable that a large portion of Hong Kong culture derives from traditions passed down from their Chinese ancestors. For instance, the city does not skimp on Chinese New Year festivities, when citizens often travel to the mainland to visit relatives. But here is glaring question: does historical unity necessitate an eventual entire reunification? Because of the two territories’ deep historical ties, only one out of six Hong Kongers support independence after 2047. Simultaneously, distinct cultural identity under 180 years of separation means a low number supports reunification too, with a majority desiring the maintenance of ‘one country, two systems.’ Indeed, there is some truth to the statements that both territories “speak Cantonese,” “like making soup,” “drinking tea, and eating dim sum.” However, are dumplings really enough to justify the current human rights violations of the CCP government? 

The author’s argument in highlighting the overlaps in language and culture, in combination with the mother-child analogy, all pertain to ethno-nationalist rhetoric and are similar to the Russian justification for its current invasion of Ukraine. Russia’s President Vladimir Putin asserts that Crimea is “primordial Russian land,” and constantly reiterates a narrative of historical unity of Ukraine and his country, implying that Ukraine is an illegitimate state. It is, therefore, especially haunting—and ironic—that the Trinity Times would celebrate the liberation of a Ukrainian city from Russian forces on the same day.

With no statistics, historical evidence, or political reports used to support an opinion on a grave inter-governmental crisis,Trinity Times has published an article that violates multiple aspects of journalistic integrity. The piece pretends to navigate a dilemma of sovereignty and human rights based on propagandist rhetoric, childhood anecdotes, and imagined dialogues between anthropomorphic state actors. 

It is truly ignorant to use a newspaper to implicitly advocate for a political crisis that has destroyed a city’s freedom of the press. The status of Hong Kong is no petty family drama where compromises can be reached through a heart-to-heart conversation between “mother” and “son.” This is no opinion piece about a novel or film where an author can write purely from their own thoughts and feelings. To reduce the horrors of authoritarianism to either of those lighter topics is offensive, irresponsible, and dangerous to students at UofT who are not only from a background of Hong Kong but those with connections to Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang, and even those in mainland China facing oppression under the CCP regime. Canada has been a safe haven for Hong Kongers for decades; many civilians, including many at UofT, have had to experience the heartbreak of leaving their homes to seek a safer life in Canada. To leave all that you know behind and be confronted with a peer-written article that essentially advocates for the continued assault on your home can only be described as a distressing and enraging experience. 

Indeed, freedom of speech and the press are vital to student life on campus. But, unchecked journalism that lacks informed opinions endangers communities. It is therefore integral that papers follow procedures such as fact-checking and high standards of integrity throughout the writing process. Campus newspapers also need to be less afraid of publicly disagreeing with their peers and instead should utilize their platform to give voice to varying perspectives. 

There are hundreds of codes covering journalistic ethics globally; while various guides may differ in their content’s detail, all that are reputable share common principles of truthfulness, accuracy, and fact-based communication. 

Here, I would like to invite the Trinity Times to reflect on whether they have honoured these journalistic standards.

Editor’s Note: The visual has been updated to more clearly communicate to the reader that the Trinity Times is the publication that is the focus of the article. In addition, the article has been anonymized for the safety of the author.