An opinion piece published by The Straits Times on 1 October 2024, titled “Asia is entering a new, post-youth era,” explores the demographic transitions occurring across the region.

The article focuses on the ageing population and its implications, as the older “Boomer” generation retires and younger generations, particularly millennials, advance in their careers.

It discusses how Asian countries are moving from a period of benefiting from a youthful, productive workforce to a new phase of demographic change. According to the piece, many leaders in Asia have not yet addressed this transition comprehensively, often prioritising short-term policy goals over long-term demographic shifts.

However, a graph included in ST piece illustrates a demographic trend in Singapore that appears inconsistent with other reports, including the Population in Brief published by Singapore’s Prime Minister’s Office on 24 September 2024.

While ST graphic depicts a predominance of young individuals in their 20s, the official Population in Brief indicates a significant shift towards an ageing population in Singapore.

It notes that 19.9% of Singaporeans were aged 65 years or older as of June 2024, and the country is expected to become “super-aged” by 2026, when over 20% of its population will be 65 or older.

By 2030, one in four Singaporeans is projected to fall into this age group.

The contrast between the opinion piece’s graph and the official data has led to questions about why no correction or clarification has been issued by ST, especially given the serious nature of demographic statistics.

As of 11 October 2024, ten days after the opinion piece’s publication, no edits have been made to address the discrepancies.

Additionally, no correction has been mandated through the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), a regulatory tool that the Singaporean government uses to correct misinformation.

This raises further questions: Is the lack of correction because the discrepancies are seen as insignificant, or is it a reflection of the media’s influence? Does the absence of a POFMA directive suggest selective application of the law, or is it a sign of a more lenient approach towards established media?

On 26 September 2024, a Hong Kong district court sentenced Chung Pui-kuen, former chief editor of the pro-democracy news outlet Stand News, to 21 months in prison for sedition.

The case, which marks the first time a journalist has been jailed for sedition since Hong Kong’s return to Chinese sovereignty in 1997, is seen as part of an ongoing crackdown on media freedom in the city. Chung, aged 55, had led Stand News during the height of the 2019 pro-democracy protests.

Chung’s co-defendant, Patrick Lam, who also served as a chief editor, received a sentence reduction due to serious health issues, with the judge ruling that a return to prison could endanger his life.

Lam had already spent nearly a year in detention and will not face further jail time.

The two editors were found guilty in August 2024 of “conspiracy to publish and reproduce seditious publications,” under a colonial-era law that carries a maximum two-year prison sentence.

District Court Judge Kwok Wai-kin, who presided over the case, argued that Stand News had engaged in actions that opposed the government rather than genuine journalistic work.

“They were taking part in the so-called resistance,” Kwok stated, pointing to the publication’s support for the pro-democracy movement.

He emphasized the influence of Stand News, which had 1.6 million followers at the time of its shutdown in 2021, claiming that the seditious articles had caused significant, though unquantifiable, damage.

Kwok maintained that prison was the only viable sentence.

International outcry

The sentencing has drawn swift condemnation from international rights organizations and foreign governments.

The United States denounced the convictions as an attack on media freedom, and the European Union called on Hong Kong authorities to stop prosecuting journalists.

Amnesty International’s China director, Sarah Brooks, noted that the ruling seems aimed at fostering a “chilling effect” on the press, discouraging criticism of the authorities both in Hong Kong and abroad. Brooks added that the situation reflects the growing repression of free speech in the former British colony.

Joseph Ngan, Chair of Hong Kong Media Overseas, expressed concern over the broader implications of the case. “This case, with its landmark ruling outlawing criticism of the government, makes clear that Hong Kong has come fully into line with laws prevailing in Mainland China,” Ngan said. He recalled that Hong Kong had been promised freedom of speech after the end of British colonial rule, a promise that, he noted, “is now a distant memory.”

The press freedom watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF) echoed these concerns. Cédric Alviani, RSF’s Asia-Pacific Bureau Director, condemned the imprisonment of Chung and called for his immediate release.

He emphasized that both Chung and Lam were acting in the public interest by reporting on social and political issues in Hong Kong, and he urged the international community to increase pressure on China to secure their freedom, alongside other detained journalists in the city.

The rise and fall of STAND News

Stand News, a non-profit Chinese-language news site, was among Hong Kong’s most influential independent media outlets. At its peak, it had over 1.7 million followers on Facebook and nearly one million on Instagram.

The publication gained significant attention during the 2019 protests, offering extensive coverage of the pro-democracy movement.

In December 2021, the outlet was raided by 200 police officers, leading to the arrest of six journalists, including Chung and Lam.

That same day, Stand News announced its closure and terminated its staff after the government froze its assets, valued at approximately 61 million Hong Kong dollars (US$7 million). Around 70 employees lost their jobs as a result.

The prosecution in the case against Chung and Lam presented at least 17 articles published by Stand News between July 2020 and December 2021 as evidence.

These articles included interviews, profiles, and opinion pieces that the authorities deemed seditious. The trial, which ended in June 2023, saw the two journalists detained for nearly a year before being granted bail under strict conditions, including weekly reports to the police and a prohibition on giving media interviews.

Declining press freedom

In recent years, Hong Kong has seen its ranking in global press freedom indices fall dramatically.

According to Reporters Without Borders, the city dropped to 135th out of 180 countries in its 2024 World Press Freedom Index, a stark contrast to its position just two decades ago when it ranked 18th. Meanwhile, China remains near the bottom of the index, ranking 172nd.

Chinese officials in Hong Kong have rejected international criticism of the sentencing, maintaining that Stand News functioned as a political organization rather than a legitimate news outlet.

The government’s position reflects broader efforts to align Hong Kong’s governance and legal frameworks more closely with those of Mainland China, particularly in terms of controlling dissent and regulating the media.

The sentencing of Chung Pui-kuen underscores the growing constraints on press freedom in Hong Kong, further solidifying the city’s shift away from its reputation as a bastion of free speech in Asia.