《苹果日报》停刊四周年：“国家安全”逻辑下，香港新闻自由的终结

Four Years Without Apple Daily: The End of Hong Kong’s Press Freedom Under the National Security Regime

香港《苹果日报》2021年6月24日最后一期头版。

作者：苹心

By Ping Xin

The English translation follows below.

四年前的今天，2021年6月24日，香港苹果日报正式停刊，结束了26年的运营。

停刊前一周，香港警务处国家安全处以“串谋勾结外国或境外势力危害国家安全”的罪名为由，动用500多名警察搜查苹果日报总部，拘捕五名该报高管，冻结公司及相关账户共计约1800万港元。资产被冻结后，苹果日报无法支付员工薪资，日常运营陷入瘫痪，被迫宣布停刊。此前的2020年8月10日，苹果日报创始人黎智英已被捕，至今仍被关押。

苹果日报的最后一期，加印到一百万份，创下该报26年来的历史纪录。香港民众纷纷排起长队购买最后一期苹果日报，一百万份报纸一抢而空。

最后一期的头版，是停刊前夜从苹果日报的总部大楼，望向窗外撑伞声援该报的香港市民的巨幅照片，头条的大字写着：“港人雨中痛別 「我哋撐蘋果」”。这一期总共32个版的内容，其中有12个版面是回顾苹果日报历史的特刊，穿插着读者、记者、撰稿人、名人向苹果日报的道别，多个版面用来回顾苹果日报26年来历史中重大的头版头条。除了道别与惋惜，苹果日报的最后一期也有关于香港国安法案件的报道，聚焦大陆“指定地点监视居住”制度的专题，还有关于伊朗独裁者以及世界多国因言获罪的记者的报道。

新闻可以是历史的初稿，而充满历史感的苹果日报最后一期，则可视作是香港一个时代的终稿。

平心而论，苹果日报作为香港上市公司壹传媒旗下的一家报纸，长期以来，批评政府，敢于发声，报道内容丰富，同时娱乐性十足，有时陷入新闻伦理争议，这一切都不足以让苹果日报享有其停刊后的英雄光环。毕竟，在一个自由的社会，无论是批判强权，还是引发争议，都是很正常的事情。

苹果日报之所以在香港国安法时代成为一个坚守自由的象征，正是因为官方的一系列终结新闻自由的举动。不过，按照官方的口径，以及所谓“国家安全”的逻辑，香港的新闻自由不会因苹果日报的高管被捕及停刊，也不会因为立场新闻的高管被捕和停刊，以及众新闻的自行停刊而终结。但事实是，如果像苹果日报和立场新闻这样，仅仅因刊印的文章，以及发表的评论，就成为警方起诉的依据，那么香港的新闻自由实际上已死。

更何况，在香港国安法时代，政府无需走完刑事程序，就可以冻结报刊的资产，让任何一家媒体瘫痪；涉及“国家安全”的案件取消陪审团制度，由特首指定的法官审理。苹果日报案和立场新闻案向世人展现的，正是香港传统普通法体系下的程序正义和权力制衡的崩坏。没有法治作为保证媒体正常运营的最后防线，新闻自由就无从谈起。

苹果日报案告诉世人，香港在“国家安全”的逻辑以及强力执行国安法的背景之下，新闻自由必然终结。实际上，在香港当下的语境中，“国家安全”这一名词，已相当于摧毁新闻自由、以言治罪的同义词。打压言论，正是“国家安全”的主要目的，而不是其副作用。

中国作为一个庞大的国家，有着丰厚的资源和巨大的暴力机器，按说是十分安全的。但官方不断强调的国家安全，并不特指其它国家要侵犯中国的权益，而是要在中国的内部划分出“境外势力”——自发上街游行抗议港府政策、呼吁自由民主的香港民众，和中国大陆的很多异议者，很容易就会被贴上“境外势力”和“颜色革命”的标签。而官方会声称，打击这些所谓境外势力，是为了保证国家的安全——毋宁说，只是为了保证内部没有反对的声音，来维持一个政党的专制统治。

所以说，这也是中国特色“国家安全”体系的核心逻辑——所谓的“国家安全”，实际指的是“政权安全”。无论是香港还是大陆，国家安全并不是保护国土完整、国家利益、国民生计的机制，而是确保政权稳定的工具。

民主制度下的“政权”安全，一般要通过拉拢选民、获得选票来实现。而在一个没有真普选的制度下，政府只能披上“国家安全”的外皮，通过打压独立媒体、消灭异议来维护权力。毕竟，对绝大部分普通民众来说，能够做出的所谓对政权的威胁，不过就是发出反对的声音。

近年来，港府和大陆政府一同借“国家安全”之名，打压香港的独立媒体和公民社会，剥夺香港民众的言论自由和新闻自由，已经证明了政权凌驾于“国家”之上的事实，也证明了所谓的“国家安全”与民众的利益是完全冲突的。言论自由和新闻自由，都是民众权益的重要保障，而所谓“国家安全”，不过是维护一党专政，并持续压迫民众的一种借口。

今天，在苹果日报停刊四周年之际，再读苹果日报最后一期的文字，很难不发出艰难的叹息。世界上恐怕没有另一个地方像香港一样，在短短几年内，从高度的自由坠落到令人无法适应的不自由。香港的新闻自由已经终结，但是香港的历史还没有终结，也不会终结。人们对自由的争取只是暂停了，而没有终结，也不会终结。正如前香港电台主持人曾志豪在苹果日报最后一期写道的：“苹果即使落下，种子已种在香港人心中，永生不死。”

本期推荐档案：

《苹果日报》最后一期

相关档案推荐：

《立场新闻》特刊：《立誌》

---

The front page of Hong Kong Apple Daily’s final issue on June 24, 2021.

Four Years Without Apple Daily: The End of Hong Kong’s Press Freedom Under the National Security Regime

By Ping Xin

Four years ago today, on June 24, 2021, Apple Daily officially ceased publication, ending 26 years of operation.

A week before it shut down, over 500 police officers from the National Security Department of the Hong Kong Police Force raided Apple Daily’s headquarters. They arrested five senior executives on charges of “conspiring to collude with foreign or external forces to endanger national security” and froze the company’s assets and related accounts totaling approximately HK$18 million. With its funds frozen, Apple Daily was unable to pay employee salaries, its daily operations ground to a halt, and the newspaper was forced to announce its closure. Prior to that, on August 10, 2020, Apple Daily’s founder Jimmy Lai had already been arrested and remains imprisoned to this day.

The final issue of Apple Daily had a record-breaking print run of one million copies—the largest in the paper’s 26-year history. Hong Kong citizens lined up in droves to purchase the last issue, and all one million copies sold out.

The front page of the final issue featured a large photo taken the night before publication, showing Hong Kong citizens holding umbrellas outside the Apple Daily building in support. The bold headline read: “Hong Kongers bid a painful goodbye in the rain—‘We support Apple Daily.’” Of the 32 pages in the final issue, 12 were part of a special edition on the newspaper’s history, interspersed with farewell messages from readers, journalists, contributors, and public figures. Several pages revisited Apple Daily’s most significant front-page stories over the years. In addition to farewells and expressions of sorrow, the issue also included reporting on national security law cases, an investigative piece on China’s “residential surveillance in a designated location” system, coverage of the Iranian dictatorship, and news about imprisoned journalists in various countries.

If journalism is the first draft of history, then Apple Daily’s final issue—heavy with the weight of history—can be seen as the final draft and a closing chapter of an era in Hong Kong.

Apple Daily, as a private newspaper, had long been known for its critical stance toward the government, its willingness to speak out, its wide-ranging and rich coverage, and a strong dose of entertainment. It occasionally sparked ethical controversies in journalism. None of these qualities alone were enough to bestow Apple Daily with the heroic aura it came to possess after its shutdown. After all, in a free society, it is entirely normal for the press to critique power and provoke controversy.

What turned Apple Daily into a symbol of resistance to authoritarianism in the era of the Hong Kong National Security Law was the government’s sweeping actions to dismantle press freedom. According to the official narrative and the logic of so-called national security, Hong Kong’s press freedom was not supposed to have ended with the arrests of Apple Daily or Stand News executives, nor with the forced closure of Citizen News. But if publishing articles or expressing opinions is enough to trigger legal prosecution, then press freedom in Hong Kong has disappeared.

Moreover, under the National Security Law, the government does not need to complete criminal procedures to cripple a media outlet—freezing its assets is sufficient to bring operations to a standstill. In national security cases, jury trials are canceled, and judges are handpicked by the Chief Executive. The cases against Apple Daily and Stand News reveal the collapse of procedural justice and the checks and balances that characterized Hong Kong’s common law system. Without the rule of law as a last line of defense for media operations, there is no meaningful press freedom.

The Apple Daily case shows that under the logic of national security and the aggressive enforcement of the National Security Law is fundamentally incompatible with press freedom. In fact, in Hong Kong, national security has effectively become synonymous with silencing dissent and criminalizing speech. The suppression of free speech is the goal of the national security regime, not an unintended side effect.

China, a vast nation with immense resources and a powerful security apparatus, is already secure. But the state’s emphasis on national security is not primarily about defending against external threats—it is about silencing dissenting voices from within. Hong Kongers who take to the streets to protest government policies or advocate for democracy and freedom, as well as many dissidents in Mainland China, are readily labeled as “foreign forces” or agents of “color revolution.” The government claims that cracking down on these so-called threats is necessary for national security, yet it is simply about silencing opposition to preserve authoritarian rule.

This is the core logic of China’s distinctive concept of national security: it refers not to the safety of the nation, but to the security of the regime. Whether in Hong Kong or the Mainland, national security is not a mechanism for protecting territorial integrity, national interests, or the livelihood of citizens—it is a tool for ensuring political stability.

In a democratic system, political power is maintained by earning public support and winning elections. But in China, a system without meaningful elections, the authorities employ the rhetoric of national security and suppress independent media and dissenting voices to retain power. For the vast majority of ordinary people, the most they can do to threaten a regime is to voice their dissent.

In recent years, the authorities have used national security to suppress independent media and civil society in Hong Kong, ending free speech and the free press. This has revealed that the regime stands above the nation and that national security directly conflicts with the interests of the people. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are essential rights of the people, while national security in this context is just a pretext for maintaining one-party rule and continued oppression.

Today, on the fourth anniversary of Apple Daily’s closure, reading its final issue evokes painful memories and nostalgia. There may be no other place in the world like Hong Kong, which turned from a vibrant place with a high degree of freedom into a regime of unfreedom in such a short period. Press freedom in Hong Kong has disappeared, but its history has not ended—and will not end. Hong Kongers’ struggle for freedom has only paused; it is not over, and it will not be over. As former RTHK host Tsang Chi-ho wrote in the final issue of Apple Daily: “Even if the Apple has fallen, the seed has been planted in the hearts of Hong Kongers—eternal and undying.”

Recommended archive:

Hong Kong Apple Daily: Final Issue

Related archive:

NEWS STAND – Stand News Special Edition