Press Release
18 July 2024
True Report issued three press releases in a row last month, revealing that the Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA) was suspected of “election rigging” and obstructed veteran journalist and editor-in-chief Sherry Lee from running for the chairmanship of the HKJA in the election of 2024-25 Executive Committee. Lee encountered many “man-made” difficulties and obstacles in the process of qualifying as a member and obtaining nomination. Ultimately, the HKJA unilaterally claimed that Lee’s nominator had withdrawn their nomination and revoked her right to participate in the election. Ronson Chan Ron-sing, chairman of the HKJA, informed the media that Sherry Lee could complain to its “Election Committee” which he claimed was “independent of the Executive Committee of the HKJA”. Lee then sent three separate emails to the HKJA on June 7, 9 and 10 to make a series of complaints regarding the matter.
The HKJA finally emailed Sherry Lee the findings of the “Election Committee” (see attachment) on June 30 and published it onto the HKJA’s Facebook page. In the investigation results, the HKJA completely failed to respond to the various questions raised by the press releases in the newspaper True Report and Sherry Lee’s complaint letter. It not only avoided addressing the main accusations, but further deflected the focus through misleading people by providing their insignificant explanations. To restore the truth, we conducted an investigation, and we are now publishing a four-part series of press releases to expose the inaccuracy and unfairness surrounding HKJA’s investigative report that conceals the HKJA’s “election rigging” scandal.
This is the first episode.
In Lee’s last complaint letter sent to the HKJA on June 10, she asked them to respond to her complaint before June 20, that is, before the election of its executive committee on June 22. However, the HKJA only announced its investigation results a month after the incident, on 30 June, instead of publicly responding to the accusations of “election rigging” before the election. This is allegedly a calculated move that ensures the HKJA election could be conducted smoothly to avoid public opposition, doubts or the chances of being overturned. Overall, this was a clear manipulation of the election results. The HKJA pointed out that the Election Committee complied with its “election code” and “reached a ruling within one month after receiving the complaint”. However, we could not find the relevant election code on the HKJA website that the HKJA had claimed in their report.
This is just the tip of the iceberg of all the issues that emerged from the investigation results alone. In this first press release, “The HKJA used “their own people” to investigate among themselves, attempting to conceal the “election rigging scandal”, we will first expose that the HKJA conducts investigations by their “friend investigate friend” approach which questions the HKJA’s independence and impartiality, and is also extremely unfair to Sherry Lee who is deprived of the right to participate in the election. The HKJA said that its “Election Committee” was responsible for the investigation, yet the HKJA has repeatedly failed to respond to Sherry Lee’s question on whether the members of the Election Committee know the senior officials of the HKJA. The information we have collected shows that the two members of the so-called “Election Committee” responsible for the investigation were acquainted with one of the key roles of the incident, Chan Ron-sing, the former chairman of the HKJA. One of them is even believed to be Chan’s close friend, which further highlights the “investigating friends by friends” method. The purpose underlying this move is suspected to be the mechanism used to hide the many scandals of the HKJA’s “election rigging”!
The HKJA suspected of using the “election committee” to block Sherry Lee from gaining nomination
On June 30, the HKJA sent Sherry Lee the “Election Committee’s” response to her complaint, which are the results of their investigation. In their reply, the Election Committee stated that all of Lee’s accusations were unfounded, and it avoided the numerous questions raised by Lee’s complaint. HKJA’s response contained a final conclusion that read: “Based on the complainant’s complaints being unfounded, she alleged that “someone operated in an under-table manner, manipulating the election” seems to only be speculative.”
In this episode, we will first expose the Election Committee’s questionable composition which is filled with alarming ambiguity, and casts great doubts on its impartiality. Since the HKJA used the excuse in its reply that they could not verify the “connection of anonymous persons” to refuse to respond to the suspicion that two HKJA members that we described anonymously were involved in rigging the election, we decided to publish their names to prove that they were real people. In this episode, we first disclose the identity of retired member, Mr. S. He is Stanley Leung, whose Chinese name is 梁錦雄.
Leung is a prominent, and influential figure in the newspaper industry. He was once the Executive Editor-in-Chief of Metropolis Daily《都市日報》, an executive member of the HKJA, and a member of the Newspaper Society of Hong Kong. He also served as a judge for the CHINESE UNIVERSITY JOURNALISM AWARD. A search of media reports revealed that when Leung was in charge, the Metropolis Daily issued a notice on its website during the city-wide strike on August 5, 2019, stating that the printing and publication of the newspaper would be suspended for one day. At the end of the notice, it wished “Hong Kong, Add Oil”. （See Picture below)
We pointed out earlier that on May 22, Sherry Lee met with her former colleague and “The Standard” reporter Mary Ann Benitez at the Pret A Manger coffee shop in IFC, Central, and obtained two signature nominations from her. She nominated Lee for chairperson, and Lee nominated Benitez for vice chairman. On the same day, Benitez contacted her old colleague and retired member of the HKJA, Mr. S (Stanley Leung). She later told Lee in a phone message that Leung could be her and Lee’s seconder, and gave his membership number to Lee, asking Lee to check with the HKJA to see if retired members are eligible to serve as seconders for them. （Benitez’s messages are shown below.）
The constitution does not prohibit retired members from seconding candidates. On May 23, Sherry Lee asked the HKJA to confirm whether Leung could become a candidate’s seconder while providing Leung’s membership number in the email. However, when Lee contacted Leung on the 24th, he suddenly mentioned that he was a member of the “Election Committee” and therefore was unable to be a seconder for Sherry Lee’s candidacy for chairperson (Leung’s message is shown below.) Our earlier press release questioned whether someone from the HKJA had privately contacted Leung that requested him not to be Lee’s seconder, thus “creating” the narrative that he was a member of the election committee and used neutrality reasons as the justification that Leung could not nominate anyone, thereby preventing Sherry Lee from getting a seconder to run for office.
The Election Committee retorted in its reply: According to the reply from the Election Committee, the committee was formed on April 19 and appointed by the current Executive Committee. It cited that for fairness, members of the Election Committee cannot publicly support any Executive Committee candidates. The reply stated that “On May 24, the committee received a report from a member that a candidate had sent him a text message inviting him to be the seconder. Based on the principle of fairness, on the date when the member had informed the committee about it, he rejected the candidate’s nomination request.
As a member of the election committee, it is completely understandable that one cannot nominate candidates for the sake of fairness. But their reply revealed something questionable. At the end of the reply, the Election Committee wrote, “The three members of the Election Committee in this term are: Leung Kam Hung (Chairman)…”, indicating Leung is Chairman of the Election Committee. If Leung was the chairman, he should have known early on that he certainly cannot be a seconder for candidates. Then why did Leung not tell this key information to Benitez on May 22, providing her with his HKJA membership number, and was willing to serve as a seconder for her and Sherry Lee? This proves that he was not a member of the Election Committee at the time, which leads to the question of who it was that arranged for Leung to become a member of the Election Committee? Is this tactic used as an excuse to prevent Sherry Lee from receiving a seconder to run for Chairperson? It is much more than a coincidence. Regarding Leung’s role in allegedly blocking the nomination, please read our third press release that would be published on June 10, “HKJA senior executives involved with rigging elections 3 – obstructing Sherry Lee from receiving nomination required for election.”
What is even more puzzling is that if Leung is the chairman, why is it that when Sherry Lee contacted Leung to obtain his nomination on May 24, he informed her that he was a member of the Election Committee instead of saying that his position of being the chairman? And after Lee learned that Leung was a member of the Election Committee, Lee asked if Leung could provide the contact of the Chairman of the Election Committee and further stated her intentions to file a complaint about his friend Ms. M being refused admission. Leung only replied with “I am busy this afternoon”. An hour later, Leung replied: “As I know there is no chairperson of the committee.” （Leung’s messages are shown below.）
Since the HKJA’s investigative report stated that the Election Committee had been established on April 19 and Leung was already the chairman, why did he say in response to Lee’s inquiry that the HKJA committee did not have a chairman? This would lead people to suspect that when the HKJA and Leung first came up with the story of “election committee members must be neutral and cannot second candidates,” they did not successfully come up with a prepared plan that matched each other’s narratives, leaving the evident “loopholes” in their respective testimony.
Based on the above flaws, the HKJA’s reply that “Members of the Election Committee cannot publicly support any candidate for the Executive Committee” is a self-defeating statement that does not support their alleged carrying out of the “Friends investigating Friends” approach. If the HKJA appointed an independent body to investigate the ” election manipulation” incident, it could have revealed the above obvious “testimony loopholes” and found out whether a culprit was behind it. However, the HKJA did not launch an independent investigation and instead used “their own people” to investigate among themselves, fueling the idea of having an “Election Commission” to investigate the incident .
The HKJA allegedly fabricated rules to replace an independent investigation with an “election committee” to conduct an investigation
The Election Committee’s reply stated that “In accordance with Article 8 of the Election Code, the Election Committee is responsible for handling all complaints regarding election procedures and results. Unless the complaint involves articles 7, 8 and 9 of the Constitution, the Election Committee’s ruling on the complaint for the final decision.”
We cannot find the mentioned “Election Code” on HKJA’s website or its constitution within the same website (See picture below), and as a result we cannot verify whether the Election Committee has the authority to “handle all complaints related to election procedures and results” as claimed by the HKJA. Therefore, there are great doubts about the motivations of the HKJA using its own “election committee” to handle complaints.
In addition, Articles 7, 8 and 9 of the association’s constitution have nothing to do with the election committee. Article 7 is about the “Executive Committee”, article 8 is about “Officers of the union”, and article 9 is about the “Use of Funds.” According to our analysis, the HKJA’s reply is to trick the public to make people feel that their appointment of the “Election Committee” procedure to handle complaints is in accordance with the association’s constitution and complying to rules and regulations. However, the public cannot find the “Election Code” on their website, and there are no relevant provisions in the association’s constitution. Reasonably, this prompts people to suspect that the HKJA is using completely non-existent information to “make its own rules” and rationalize their narrative that “the election committee is responsible for investigating complaints”, thereby using “their own people to investigate their own people” to replace the use of an independent organization in conducting investigations on the HKJA, in order to produce results that are favorable to themselves.
Any professional organization can investigate social incidents, with the bottom line being that the relevant organization must be independent and impartial. Can the “Election Committee” of HKJA conduct an independent and impartial investigation? The Election Committee’s replies often leave the impression that they are supposedly rule-abiding and fair, with the goal of putting themselves on the moral high ground. For example, their reply stated that a candidate once sent a text message to invite a member of the Election Committee to be their seconder, “The member of the Election Committee did not participate in handling this election complaint to show fairness’’ to express their investigation is very fair. But the reality is the opposite to what they present.
The member of the election committee they are referring to is Stanley Leung, who was invited by Sherry Lee to be the seconder. According to the information we found online, Leung and Chan Ron-sing worked together on the executive committee of the HKJA. The two are evidently friends. Leung has also served on the HKJA for many years, including serving as Honorary Treasurer in 2008/09, and as a member of the Executive Committee in 2009/10（See picture below）, 2011/12, 2012/13, and 2013/14, he is familiar with different former senior executives. It is highly possible that because of his trust in these senior executives, when he received requests from them, he allegedly helped obstruct Sherry Lee from running for election!
In its reply, the HKJA pointed out that the member of the Election Committee who was asked to be seconder was not involved in handling the election complaints, which had revealed that the HKJA was well aware that Leung was invited by Sherry Lee to be the seconder, that is Mr. s who is suspected of participating in blocking the nomination. However, the Election Committee’s reply did not point out that it had investigated Leung at all, nor did it indicate the fact that Leung knew the former and current senior officials of the HKJA. This proved that the investigation was suspected of hiding evidence and was seriously unfair.
Lee requested confirmation on whether the members of the election committee know Chan Ron-sing and the executive committee, but the HKJA has not responded yet!
Sherry Lee clearly requested the HKJA to provide the identity of the chairman and members of the “Election Committee”, including their names and current positions, and to confirm whether members of the “Election Committee” knew the former Chairman of the HKJA, Chan Ron-sing, and any Executive Committee members on a personal level. Following this, True Report immediately disclosed Sherry Lee’s request on its Facebook page, calling for the HKJA to conduct a fair and impartial investigation without bias. However, the HKJA has not responded.
In the last paragraph of the reply from the HKJA on June 30, it was written that “the three members of this election committee are: Stanley Leung 梁錦雄 (chairman), Ken Lui and Cheung Lai San.” （See picture below) This move creates the superficial impression that the HKJA has a high degree of transparency, but the HKJA has yet to disclose the current positions or identities of the three people without any attempt to disclose their relationship with the current and past HKJA, making it impossible for the public to know their independence.
According to the previously mentioned reply, they pointed out that Leung did not participate in the investigation because he was invited by Lee to be the seconder. Now the focus is shifted onto Ken Lui and Cheung Lai-san. Can they conduct an independent investigation? This not only depends on the ethics of the two people (the public can judge whether they have ethics of objectivity based on their past reporting on social events), but also depends on the relationship between the two and the then and former senior officials of the HKJA to judge the independence and impartiality of the investigation.
We simply conducted an investigation based on their relationship with Chan Ron-sing, the then chairman of the HKJA. According to the information we found on the Internet, coupled with Chan Ron-sing’s personal Facebook content and the HKJA’s Facebook posts, the three people turned out to be friends. In other words, the investigation they conducted was “friends investigate friends.” With this relationship, how can they possibly conduct an independent investigation?
This makes us understand why Sherry Lee requested the HKJA in her complaint letter on June 7 to provide the identities of the election committee members and confirm whether its chairman and members knew Chan Ron-sing and the members of the executive committee. The HKJA has not responded, because if it had been made public earlier, people would point out that the relevant persons are acquainted with the senior management of the HKJA and should never be made responsible for conducting an independent investigation. Therefore, the HKJA could only mention the names of the members of the Election Committee in a light manner in its public reply to Sherry Lee nearly a month later, that is, after the newsiness of the incident had disappeared, thus reducing public pressure. Regarding the ties between the committee members and the senior officials of the HKJA, not a single word about this matter has been mentioned!
Therefore, let us reveal the relationship between Chan Ron-sing and the two members of the Election Committee responsible for conducting the supposed “independent investigation”.
Ken Lui Tze-lok and Cheung Lai-san, who were in charge of the investigation, were confirmed to be friends of Chan Ron-sing. “Friends investigate friends” have lost their independence!
Firstly, let’s talk about Ken Lui Tze-lok, formerly a local news assignment editor. He has worked for many media organizations such as Apple Daily, Stand News, Hong Kong 01, Cable TV, etc. In 2023, he co-founded the online media “The Collective” with Choy Yuk Ling, the former producer of “Hong Kong Connection”. On June 30, the last day Chan took office as the chairman of the HKJA, “The Collective” released a YouTube video of an exclusive interview with him, titled “Walking with You.” To promote him in an emotional way, the short film records Chan Ron-sing’s “ups and downs in life over the past few years”. The video appeared during the time when True Report exposed the HKJA led by Chan for allegedly engaging in election rigging. Nearly 60,000 people watched the video. The purpose of the film seemed to be for vindicating Chan. Why does this media report only positive things about Chan? Perhaps it has something to do with the close relationship between its co-founder Ken Lui and Chan, and this was revealed by Chan Ron-sing on his Facebook.
On July 1st, Chan reposted the interview produced for him by “The Collective” on his personal Facebook account. At the bottom of his post, he absent-mindedly wrote: “Finally, thank you ‘The Collective’, and thank you Bao and Lui Le…I still have many comrades, old friends, close friends…by my side.” (See picture below) “Bao” is Choy Yuk Ling’s nickname, and “Lui Le” is the nickname of Ken Lui, Chan calls Lui by his nickname. He also described them as “comrades, old friend, best friend”. These names and expressions have confirmed that the two are very close friends!
A quick search on the internet would reveal that the two of them worked together on the executive committee of the HKJA. For example, in 2013/14, Chan Ron-sing, who was working at TVB, and Ken Lui, who was working at Apple Daily, worked together on the executive committee. This information clearly indicates that the two are friends. How can a “friends investigate friends” investigation not be heavily affected by bias? Ken Lui used his online media platform to shoot a video for Chan, an alleged attempt at rebuilding Chan’s image of justice. Chan thanked Choy and Lui in a post, indicating that it was partly Ken Lui who decided to shoot and publish the interview, which directly reflected Lui’s intentions to promote Chan. How can he conduct an independent investigation fairly? Even if it is discovered that Chan has manipulated the election, will he disclose to the public the mistakes involving Chan Ron-sing? The incident also further raises the question on whether “The Collective” is a fair media.
It is also worth mentioning that Leung, Chan and Lui all worked together in the 2013/14 executive committee（see picture below). Leung and Lui served together on the Executive Committee in 2011/12 and 2012/13. The duo worked in the “Press Freedom Subcommittee” of the HKJA in 2011/12 and 2013/14. One can see the many connections between the investigators and the people under investigation, how can it be fair for Ken Lui to conduct the investigation?
Let’s talk about Cheung Lai-san, who was a former reporter of “Citizen News”. In 2021, she participated in writing the “Stories of the Anti-Extradition Movement” online. As early as 2009, during a march for press freedom led by former chairman Mak Yin-ting, Chan Ron-sing and Cheung Lai-san served as journalist volunteers together, standing guard and maintaining order during the march (See picture below). It is believed that the two knew each other at that time. The two also worked together on the Executive Committee of the HKJA in 2014/15. At that time, Chan was employed by “East Network TV” and Cheung worked at “am730”. (See picture below) In November 2021, the HKJA held a by-election for the 2021/22 executive committee, Cheung, the then “Citizen News” reporter, was elected as an executive committee member. Chan was the chairman of the HKJA at the time. How could they not know each other? How can the investigation led by Cheung be independent? If the members of the Election Committee responsible for the investigation had no independence, how could they conduct a comprehensive and in-depth investigation, and provide the complainant with a response containing fair judgment?
Assume that it was not Chan Ron-sing who allegedly committed election rigging, but some other former senior official. Ken Lui and Cheung Lai-san, who have served the HKJA for many years, are also closely familiar to many former chairpersons and executive committee members of the HKJA, and many of them worked together in various committees and groups under the HKJA, would they have the ability to carry out investigations in a fair and objective manner? Conducting the so-called “independent investigation” in this nonsense “friends investigate friends” approach will only put shame to the reputation of the HKJA!
Hong Kong has always valued fairness and impartiality. The identities of members of independent investigation committees appointed in different social events have always been disclosed before their establishment. Members must also have no connection with the persons or organizations under investigation to maintain the independence of the investigation. As an institution that monitors the status of Hong Kong’s democracy and freedom, the HKJA should attach great importance to fairness, but it blatantly violated the code of fairness and seriously undermined the impartiality of the investigation. If it’s own innocence needed to be proved, the HKJA would be expected to have appointed an independent team outside of the organisation to investigate the incident, but instead appointed “our own people to check their own people”, and finally used the results of the “friends to check their friends” investigation to support their narrative that all of Sherry Lee’s complaints are unfounded. This type of investigation method is completely opposite to fair and impartial, and it raises further suspicion that the HKJA is trying to cover up its manipulation in the election.
Sherry Lee’s criticism of people for election rigging proves to be extremely significant. It is very important for the HKJA to provide the complainant with an independent and fair investigation. However, the above incidents and collective facts prove that the self-investigation by the HKJA is unfair. The deliberate use of an election committee to replace an independent organization to conduct an investigation without following the association’s rules and regulations is already their first crime. Their second crime was that they did not investigate the relationship between the HKJA senior officers and Leung. Eventually, it involved the Election Committee to conduct an investigation, i.e., “friends investigate friends”, which resulted in the serious lack of fairness and independence in the investigation; their third crime.
Since the survey results of “check friends with friends” are full of loopholes, we can no longer believe that HKJA has any integrity. We don’t know whether the investigation results were possibly “fabricated” by two members of the Election Committee, or whether the senior officials involved in the HKJA already had their “version of the story” that was merely issued by two old friends who were fine with risking their personal reputation. It is also unknown to us whether Leung’s participation is caused by pressure from other parties or out of his own will.
Regarding the unfair investigation results, Sherry Lee, the editor-in-chief of True Report, has no opportunity to fight back, because the HKJA unilaterally stipulates that there is no appeal mechanism for the investigation. The HKJA clearly stipulated in its reply to Lee that “the election committee’s decision on the complaint is final.” The fixed method is completely a “one word” approach, depriving Lee of the basic human rights to a fair trial, and projects HKJA’s ignorance for the concept of democracy and freedom they believe themselves to uphold. It is great irony for the Hong Kong Journalists Association, which has always fought for democracy and freedom!
In the next episode, we will expose one by one how the HKJA’s investigation results attempt to hide the truth!
True Report
18 July 2024
HKJA’s Election Committee’s reply to Sherry Lee’s complaints in relation to election (Chinese only)
Related articles: