‘Smears,’‘slander,’ and ‘so-called’: Wolf-warrior language against critics does Hong Kong no favours

Legislative Council member and Executive Council convenor Regina Ip has criticised the Hong Kong government’s aggressive, “wolf-warrior” style of addressing overseas critics, especially critics of our new national security regime.

Interviewed by Ming Pao, she implied that this style (always “refute,” “firmly oppose,” “strongly condemn”) undermines Hong Kong’s ability to connect with the international community. ”Openness,” she said, is the key to success. When ”people come and money comes… this is the only way to be successful. And if it’s too much of a fighting style, it won’t work… If it’s too much wolf warrior [Hong Kong] won’t be able to play the role.” It was very sensible advice. 

Ip was referring to government statements, such as the one a spokesman issued on March 20. He was responding to comments by various Western governments and politicians, non-government organisations, foreign media, and “absconders” about the passage of the Article 23 national security ordinance.

The reply started out: The HKSAR government “firmly opposed and strongly condemned the slanders and smears, as well as grossly misleading and false remarks” about the law. The reply ended: Only those who sought to “intrude into our home to plunder and loot” should fear the NSL. This behaviour was a “despicable manoeuvre” that was “doomed to fail.”

In this and many other responses to comments from the EU, the UK, the US and foreign media, the spokesman used language such as “slander” or “wantonly” or “maliciously slander,” “smear,” “so-called,” “utterly ugly,” “scandalous,” “absurd,” “confounding right and wrong” and so forth.

By some obscure logic, travel advisories in this lexicon became “so-called” travel advisories, perhaps because our government disapproved of them. This has long been the propaganda language of the central authorities (party and government). The authors of the EU, UK, and US reports did not use this kind of language. They also sometimes had good things to say about Hong Kong.

In a Jekyll and Hyde fashion, these characterisations were interspersed with reasonable and sober rebuttals of key elements of the foreign statements and reports. Apart from the language, the overseas reports and the Hong Kong government spokesman were mostly talking past each other. Officials in Hong Kong emphasised laws and policy while the foreign reports focused on the practices on the ground, quoting cases and surveys. Not a surprise. 

The new language began creeping into Hong Kong official communications in July 2019, when the then-chief executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor decried the “smearing” of the police. “Smear” may mean to vilify, “to spread unpleasant or untrue rumours” about a person or institution to damage their (its) reputation. “Smear” is not a legal term, but the language of politics. The word was picked up by the Secretary for Home Affairs Lau Kong-wah in September and by the then-Secretary for Security John Lee Ka-chiu in October 2019.  

A quick search for “smear” in government press release archives reveals that prior to 2019, the word was rarely used. From 2012-2017, for example, “smear” appears only once, used by Carrie Lam when she was chief secretary on January 11, 2017, to denounce certain people who ‘smear’ our institutions. From July 1, 2017 until the end of 2018 “smear” does not appear at all.  

Since 2020 and especially in 2023, perhaps doing double duty, authorities were defending the National Security Law of 2020 and preparing the ground for Article 23.  2024 promises to be a bumper year. 

The change in the government’s official language requires an explanation. I speculate that the central authorities now require it of official Hong Kong communication on some topics in some situations.

Speaking at the NSL Education Day ceremony on April 15, Liaison Office Head Zheng Yanxiong reminded everyone that after the formation of the “two laws and two mechanisms” [national security law and Article 23 national security ordinance; central national security office in Hong Kong and the Hong Kong government national security committee], those who oppose China and stir up trouble in Hong Kong will certainly smear; keeping Hong Kong’s capitalist system intact is not the same as keeping its Western and colonial ideology intact. 

He said we must launch a tit-for-tat cognitive struggle [認知鬥爭]. “Unsavoury external forces are unscrupulously badmouthing China and Hong Kong, and even some well-known Western media have been involved in spreading rumours and smearing” … “some rumours and lies know no depths” … “the only way to survive is to share the same hatred and fight side by side.” So, are these foreign reports and the Hong Kong government responses part of this struggle? 

Clearly extreme language is not required of every official communication defending Hong Kong’s national security regime. Witness the moderate speech from the Deputy Secretary for Justice, Horace Cheung Kwok-kwan, at the UN Human Rights Council. This speech reads like the Hyde part of many of the government spokesman’s responses to the foreign reports. Conflicted communication is ineffective communication.

Communication serves many functions. Among them, persuading or even engaging readers or listeners is very important. This was the function of the UNHCR speech. Expressing emotion is another function of communication. The Jekyll part of the Hong Kong government’s response to the foreign reports only told us about the emotional state of the spokesman. He was angry, very angry (returning hate for hate?)

This is good political theatre, rallying supporters and mobilising true believers. But it is ineffective at delivering important messages about what was one-sided, incomplete, or inaccurate in the foreign reports. Who would read beyond the first paragraph?

The government must know that netizens joke about government press releases. How many “slanders and smears,” “doomed to fail” and “so-called” will there be this time? The important messages are being lost because officials insult and demean recipients at the outset.

As Regina Ip observes, how can we hope to attract the resources China needs by using this kind of incendiary language? We want effective communication, not scoring points to impress the bosses.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team