‘Good HK stories’ better heard after dialling down the rhetoric

Official use of blunt propaganda and well-worn phrases does nothing for city’s cause, but return to reasoned argument may be on the way

The call to “tell good stories about Hong Kong” has been the rallying cry for the city’s efforts to rebuild its international image after the pandemic and political transformation of recent years.

For the campaign to work, the stories must not only be true but told well. They need to be compelling, credible and convincing to sway opinions overseas.

But the presentation of the case for Hong Kong has been undermined by the repeated official use of red-hot rhetoric and blunt propaganda. Last week, thankfully, signs emerged the government might be softening this strategy. The move is long overdue.

The “wolf warrior” brand of diplomacy might play well with nationalistic netizens, but in terms of promoting the city, it is self-defeating. The full-blooded attacks on critics tend to confirm notions in the West that Hong Kong is now little different to the mainland.

The rhetoric reached a peak during the passing of new domestic national security laws last month, with numerous official rebuttals of criticisms and perceived misconceptions concerning the legislation.

A recent government statement responding to a critical US report used words such as absurd, bullying, ugly and despicable. That is just one of many examples. The same well-worn phrases have been used over and over again. They have lost their power and meaning, overshadowing more sophisticated attempts to present Hong Kong’s point of view.

While the rhetoric has mostly featured in public statements, it has also found its way into official documents, from a report from the financial secretary in 2021 to the recent consultation paper on the domestic security laws. Criticisms have routinely been dismissed as “smears” or “slander”. This is similar to former US president Donald Trump’s use of the term “fake news”. It leaves little room for sensible discussion.

While Hong Kong has every right to stand up for itself, correct misunderstandings and convey its position, the constant use of such rhetoric is at odds with efforts to promote the city as open and international, warmly welcoming talent, tourists and investment from overseas.

It is encouraging to see suggestions that, with the new domestic national security law passed, the government is – at last – inclined to shift to a more moderate approach.

Secretary for Justice Paul Lam Ting-kwok struck a refreshingly measured tone in his interview with the South China Morning Post last week. Lam defended the rebuttals, arguing silence might be misinterpreted “as a sort of admission”. But he added that the response should be proportionate, persuasive and rational, frankly admitting he “hated” making rebuttals.

The justice chief said the government should not come across as hot-tempered or emotional. This suggests a welcome return to reasoned argument.

Making a credible case will also involve conceding a few points where those arguments are weak. National security laws inevitably curb rights. There is no point in pretending otherwise. It is all about where the line is drawn.

Some Western diplomats also seem to have realised that criticisms of the city lose their strength when they are frequent and repetitive. They are sensibly adopting a wait-and-see approach to the new laws.

Ultimately, Hong Kong’s image will depend on what it does rather than what it says. Seeing is, indeed, believing. Lam’s view that the new legislation should only be used when strictly necessary and when there are “really compelling circumstances” is helpful. So far, there have been no arrests.

It would be naive to think the new law will not be used. It will. But a cautious and considered approach will help support the government’s argument that ordinary people need not fear it.

Lam also said legal means will not be used to crack down on “soft resistance” and that the government needs different points of view. This is good to hear. Dialling down the rhetoric and better articulating Hong Kong’s case will make it more likely the city’s “good and true” stories will be heard.

Making a credible case will also involve conceding a few points where those arguments are weak