Another Hong Kong reporter was barred from entering Macau on security grounds last week, Hong Kong Free Press reported yesterday.
The reporter, who worked for Apple Daily, is the latest individual to be refused entry into the territory by local immigration services.
Immigration services said the reporter was denied on the ground of constituting a threat to internal security and stability.
On Wednesday, Hong Kong politician and Tai Po District Council member Kwan Wing Yip was also detained at a Taipa checkpoint for two hours before being allowed to enter Macau.
Last week, four other journalists from Hong Kong’s Apple Daily, HK01 and the South China Morning Post were turned away from Macau, after traveling to the MSAR to report on the aftermath of Typhoon Hato and subsequent relief efforts.
On Tuesday evening, democratic lawmaker Helena Wong was refused entry to the city for the same reason. She claims to have been traveling to Macau as part of an exchange trip to the University of Macau, organized by the Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
The Macau government has repeatedly denied that it is targeting foreign journalists and lawmakers, explaining that the services are not aware of the individuals’ professions. The government has not provided details on the criteria used to determine whether a person is a threat to security.
Some of the persons refused entry have promised to write to Macau’s chief executive, Chui Sai On, to complain.
Secretary for Security Wong Sio Chak has said on several occasions that “every country and every region has its own immigration control policies. To those who carry influence or threat to region’s security, that country’s or the region’s law enforcement department has the right to execute the law.”
However, such immigration decisions are typically met with condemnation and alarm from activists, lawmakers, reporters and journalists’ associations.
The Macau Portuguese and English Press Association issued a statement this week that it “finds the explanation given by local authorities incomprehensible and unsatisfactory [… and it] tarnishes the international image of the SAR regarding press freedom.” DB
