Willy
Wo-Lap Lam
The resignation of Willy Lam, former Associate Editor/
China and columnist for the SCM Post, has attracted
much attention, here and abroad. More than 100 editors and
reporters wrote a joint letter to the paper backing Mr Lam.
The FCC’s Freedom of the Press Committee wrote this letter
to the newspaper.
November
2000 - The Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Hong Kong expresses
its concern at the resignation of Willy Wo-Lap Lam from
the SCMP after its decision to relieve him of his
duties as China editor. The FCC rarely comments on the personnel
decisions of news media, but the possibility that Mr Lam
might have been removed for political reasons is too serious
to disregard.
We
note the Post’s statement that political concerns were not
behind the move, and that it was taken to broaden coverage
of the Mainland. Mr Lam, however, has asserted that an "invisible
hand" had in recent months begun to assert itself regarding
China-related news, and the circumstances leading up to
his departure do provide grounds for worry.
Mr
Lam has an international reputation as a specialist in Chinese
affairs and his commentaries — sometimes controversial —
are widely read both by experts and the general public.
He has served his paper for 12 years, 10 of them as China
editor.
Mr
Lam was personally criticized four months ago in the Post’s
letters section by the paper’s majority shareholder and
former chairman, Robert Kuok Hock Nien, who objected to
Mr Lam’s column suggesting that a group of Hong Kong tycoons
(including Mr Kuok) had been called to Beijing and told
to rally behind Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa. Mr Kuok described
the article as "absolute exaggeration and fabrication."
Mr Lam stood by his story. Mr Kuok is of course entitled
to comment upon his own paper. But then, several more leading
businessmen wrote to attack Mr Lam and subsequently the
State Council’s information office and Wen Wei Po joined
the criticism.
In
addition, Mr Lam has asserted that he was told on a number
of occasions that some unnamed people were unhappy with
his columns and that he should moderate them, which he declined
to do. He was sufficiently concerned by these requests that
he began to look for alternative employment. The decision
to relieve him of his responsibilities as China editor,
taken without his knowledge, would seem to substantiate
his assessment.
The
SCMP has described the move as "an organisational
change aimed at expanding and diversifying its coverage
of China." Given the criticisms of the paper’s China
coverage, it is difficult to view Mr Lam’s transfer as simply
an internal reshuffle by a private company. The suggestion
of political pressure is implicit in the change. Newspapers,
have a special responsibility of public trust; any decision
by them that may affect the free flow of information is
a matter of public concern.
The
FCC fears the Post’s move is likely to give the impression,
fairly or unfairly, that its China-related news will from
now on be coordinated into a more singular, less critical
view. The readers of Post have come to expect a high standard
of reporting, along with informed analysis and sometimes
critical commentary, of mainland affairs. They will no doubt
be watching very carefully for any indication that Mr Lam’s
removal as China editor signals an effort to depoliticise
the reporting of China’s political news.
SCMP
Editor Robert Keatley's response
