We already knew that "Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times" is considered seditious -- but has "Five demands, not one less" been deemed to be so too now?!

Seen on a Lennon Wall in 2019

"A Hong Kong man was denied bail under the city’s new domestic security law after he allegedly wore a t-shirt with a banned protest slogan and a yellow mask".  Thus began a report in the Hong Kong Free Press about an individual whose arrest on Wednesday (June 12th) only came to be known by many yesterday (June 14th).

 

"Defendant Chu Kai-pong, 27, was brought to the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts on Friday to face one count of “doing with a seditious intention an act or acts that had a seditious intention.” He was also charged with failing to show his proof of identity to the police and loitering with intent, the report continued.

 

"According to the charge sheet, Chu was intercepted by the police on Wednesday near Shek Mun MTR station. He was said to have worn a top and a mask printed with statements that were allegedly intended to incite hatred, contempt or disaffection against the “fundamental system of the state established by the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China.”"

 

Note: Wednesday was June 12th -- the fifth anniversary of the day back in 2019 when the riot police fired over 150 cannisters of tear gas into a large crowd assembled at Admiralty with the intention of surrounding the Legislative Council complex to protest the anti-extradition bill. And also brutally beat up unarmed individuals in the crowd. In full view of media and other cameras.

 

"Local media reported on Friday that Chu’s t-shirt contained the 2019 protest slogan “Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times,” which was ruled as being capable of carrying secessionist connotations in the city’s first national security law trial in 2021." Arrests related to that particular slogan were first made in July 2020 -- very soon after the national security law that China imposed on Hong Kong being in effect.

 

"Chu was also wearing a yellow mask printed with the words “FDNOL.” The phrase is considered an acronym of “Five Demands, Not One Less,” also a slogan from the 2019 extradition bill protests which laid out the movement’s demands."

 

Note: If "Five Demands, Not One Less" is considered illegal, it's newly so -- and this would be the first time that someone was arrested with regards to it.  And, frankly, this is a "development" I find extremely disturbing as it represents a further level of restriction of free speech along with what appears to be a (deliberate) misrepresentation of a pretty moderate set of demands as ones that are inflammatory, even revolutionary.

 

Something else not mentioned in the Hong Kong Free Press piece (but was reported earlier in the year): Chu Kai-pong was previously arrested at Hong Kong International Airport  last November. At the time, he was wearing a T-shirt with the "Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times” slogan printed on it and found to be in possession of flags that bore similar slogans.

 

For this, he was sentenced to three months jail in January.  Which would mean that he was out of jail by April at the latest.  So it seems he's a repeated offender in this regard and the police appear to have targeted him. 

 

The former is something that could be said about the majority of Article 23 arrestees (who include "Grandma" Alexandra Wong this past June 4th) thus far while the latter is something that seems to be the case with all of them.  Which gives credence to my suspicion that in contemporary Hong Kong, it's a matter of "If they want to get you, they'll get you with some law or other".  So one can only hope that one's not among the "extremely small minority" that the national security laws are meant to target!

The first six Article 23 arrests get people thinking all the more of June 4th (and this even while it's still only May)!

  

Victoria Park one week before the 35th anniversary

of the Tiananmen Square Massacre

 

I had a dream last night in which Lee Cheuk-yan, was walking around talking to people at an event I was attending; prompting to wonder to myself, "Wait, isn't he supposed to be in prison?"

 

For the record: I don't normally dream about public figures/political prisoners.  But I guess my subconscious turned my being all too aware that we're just one week away from the 35th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre into a dream about the former chair of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China: that is, the organisation behind the (once) annual June 4th candelight vigils in Victoria Park -- the last of which I was at in 2019.   

 

One reason why I may have been thinking of the upcoming Tiananmen Square Massacre anniversary last night was because yesterday afternoon, as the bus I was taking passed by Victoria Park, my attention was caught by a greater police presence than usual on an edge of the public park.  It's nothing compared to what I imagine will be the case come June 4th (or probably even this weekend -- the weekend leading up to it) based on what's happened in recent years.  

 

And this on top of the now usual "refurbishments" being made at this time of the year to the football pitches where the June 4th candelight vigils used to take place.  Oh, and this year, there's also a very "red" looking event scheduled to take place in the area too -- one whose advertising mentions the dates 6/1, 6/2, 6/3 and 6/5 but not 6/4!  (For those who didn't realize: the Chinese way of writing dates is like the American one in placing the month before the day.) 

 

And after today's events, I'm thinking I'll be dreaming tonight of Lee Cheuk-yan's erstwhile Hong Kong Alliance comrade and fellow poliical prisoner, Chow Hang-tung -- who was one of the six people arrested today by the Hong Kong national security police "on suspicion of acting with seditious intention", marking the first apprehensions under the city’s new security law, which was enacted this past March.  (And yes, here's confirming that she, who already is behind bars, was arrested again... and for an alleged crime involving social media posts... even though she does not have access to a computer while behind bars!)

Somewhat bizarrely, "Secretary for Security Chris Tang confirmed... that the arrests were made in connection with a Facebook group that called for support for barrister and human rights activist Chow, who has been detained under the Beijing-imposed national security law since September 2021. The group was created on May 18, 2023, and the primary location for those that managed it was the UK.

 

It was also reported by the Hong Kong Free Press that: "The posts were said to have made use of an “upcoming sensitive date” to incite hatred against the central and Hong Kong governments, as well as the Judiciary. Police also alleged that the posts intended to incite netizens to organise or participate in illegal activities at a later time."

 

As Eero Kivistö, a self-described "guy from Finland posting random political ramblings", incredulously Tweeted in reaction to the news of Chow Hang-tung's further arrest: "Let me get this straight: an activist that has been detained since 2021 was arrested under a law that took effect in March? Seriously?"  Sadly, yes.  Also, this time around, the police arrested Chow Hang-tung's mother too!  (No, I am not kidding.  I wish I was but I'm not.) 

By the way, mention of Chow Hang-tung's mother got me thinking, of course, of the Tiananmen Mothers, the Chinese democracy activists promoting a change in the government's position over the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre led by the now 87-year-old Ding Zilin, a retired university professor whose teenage son was shot and killed by government troops during the protests. (What can I say?  That's how my brain works!)  

 

It's pretty incredible that they've sought justice and change for some 35 years now.  And while it's incredibly sad that their pursuit has thus far been in vain, they really are to be admired, if not supported, for their persistence throughout the three and a half decades.

 

As are the likes of Lee Cheuk-yan and those Hong Kongers who have sought the same -- and for many, the same amount of time.  And have been persecuted for doing so.  A Hong Kong Democracy Council Tweet noted that: "[With] today's 6 arrests there've been in all 76 arrests in #HongKong for commemorating #June4 #TiananmenMassacre since candlelight vigil was banned in 2020. Chow Hang-tung's been arrested 4 times for marking June 4 & is awaiting trial on remand for her role as organizer of the vigil".

 

I'm willing to bet that before 2020, no one in Hong Kong was arrested with regards to commemorating the Tiananmen Square Massacre. This not least because the annual candlelight vigils in Victoria Park were peaceful affairs; with the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people who took part in them being there to mourn, remember and honour the dead doing so in a thoroughly respectful and respectable manner.

By the way, the authorities can't seem to bring themselves to actually name the "upcoming sensitive date".  I trust that I've written the date enough times in this blog entry so that there's no mistaking which date is the one that is in question and at issue here.  Also, to be clear: despite their efforts to make it so, I sincerely doubt that Hong Kong has become part of the People's Republic of Amnesia -- or will anytime soon.  This not least because all their attempts to stop people commemorating June 4th only get people remembering it all the more!

Cinema Strada puts Law Kar left, right and centre (Film review)

  

Cinema Strada director Donna Ong and subject Law Kar

at the world premiere of the film

 

Cinema Strada (Hong Kong, 2024)

- Donna Ong, director

- Part of the Hong Kong International Film Festival's Filmmakers and Filmmaking program

 

The man known to Hong Kong film fans by his pseudonym/penname Law Kar (but whose actual name is Lau Yiu-kuen) is the subject of this documentary directed by Donna Ong.  He also is the producer and narrator of Cinema Strada -- so most definitely is left, right and centre of it.

I'll come right out and say it: I'm not sure whether this is a good thing.  For one thing, Law Kar may be too familiar with Law Kar!  By this, I mean that he -- and thus, Cinema Strada -- may have assumed that audiences of the documentary will already have known a lot about him prior to going into a screening of it.  For even while it does pretty much tell the story of Law Kar from the beginning, chronologically speaking, it also can feel like some of the more basic and obvious information we should know about this veteran Hong Kong film critic is missing -- or only mentioned by the by.

 

As an example: Law Kar was the programmer for the Hong Kong Film Archive from 2001 to 2005 (and a guest programmer for a number of years after that).  He also programmed the Hong Kong International Film Festival's Hong Kong film retrospectives for a number of years.  In doing so, he shaped opinions and views on Hong Kong cinema for decades -- particularly, it might be argued, in the 21st century.  And yet, the bulk of Cinema Strada focuses on events that took place in the 20th century, and selective decades of that century at that.

In particular, Cinema Strada spends a lot of time on the 1960s -- covering not only Law Kar's time as editor-in-chief of popular youth magazine, The Chinese Student Weekly, which he used to introduce world cinema and film theory to readers, critiqued non-mainstream art films from overseas, and shone a light on local moves in Chinese films, but also his reactions and thoughts about such as the Hong Kong Riots of 1967 and Michelangelo Antonioni’s 1966 film, Blow-Up!  

 

Given its surprisingly extensive coverage of the 1967 Hong Kong Riots, you might think that there would be mention too of more recent political upheavals in Hong Kong.  But that's not the case.  And I have to admit that I got to wondering whether this constitutes self-censorship on Law Kar's part.  Something that would be... understandable, given the times we now live in. (A reminder: Article 23 came into effect days before this year's Hong Kong International Film Festival got going.  This on top of Hong Kong already having a national security law imposed on it by China on June 30th, 2020.)  But disappointing and sad all the same.

 

Let's put it this way: I came out of Cinema Strada wondering what this film would have been like if it had been made just five years earlier -- the same way that I rue the biopic about Anita Mui having come out in 2021 rather than, say, 2011, 2016 or even 2019.  I also wondered if Law Kar the subject would have been better served if he had been less "hands on" with regards to this documentary.

 

To be sure, it was interesting to learn about such as Law Kar's youth in Macau, his time in Italy (when he went to study for a time and met Fellini, even being an extra in one of the Italian auteur's films) and also his views of 1950s Hong Kong after he moved here from Macau.  It also was fun to see snippets of his time with TVB (which he joined in 1974), where he scripted and co-directed drama series for and with then up-and-coming directors including members of the Hong Kong New Wave such as Patrick Tam Ka-ming, Ann Hui, Yim Ho and the late Alex Cheung. 

 

 Still, I can't shake off the feeling that, ultimately, what I got was an incomplete, uneven, skewed maybe too, portrait of Law Kar -- that was incredibly detailed in parts but basic in others -- and feel that it's a pity that this was so.  This not least as I think Law Kar, the man, could be as interesting a film subject as Harry Odell, the impressario that Dora Choi and Haider Kikabhoy's  To Be Continued (which had its world premiere at last year's Hong Kong International Film Festival) did such a great job of introducing its audience to.

My rating for this film: 6.0

Article 23 has come into effect, and already been wielded

  

The kind of bookstore I wish could flourish in Hong Kong

 

Article 23 came into force last Saturday (March 23rd, 2024).  Even before it came into effect, yet another wave of fear had swept Hong Kong -- and with it, announcement of store closures and such.  Although pro-democracy/free speech Mount Zero bookstore announced its upcoming closure (at the end of March; i.e., this Sunday) some weeks back, it clearly is a victim of the double whammy that's Article 23 and the National Security Law China imposed on Hong Kong on June 30th, 2020.

 

Over the weekend, I visited another of Hong Kong's remaining independent bookstores.  Even while some books that clearly showed its pro-democracy/free speech credentials remained on display, a staffer told me that they were other books that they had removed some others from their shelves while they waited to see where the new "red lines" were being drawn.  Put another way: they were anticipating that the "red lines" would be further tightened and there be less space for free speech and such in the city; and also waiting, like other Hong Kongers, to see Article 23 being wielded against people.

I must admit that a part for me was imagining horrors like mass arrests taking place at the stroke of midnight or pre-dawn on Saturday -- and was already counting my blessings later that day and Sunday that nothing directly Article 23 related had happened over the first 48 hours or so.  On Monday evening, however, I heard rumblings that something untoward had happened involving a jailed activist-protestor; and confirmation came along yesterday that Ma Chun-man had been denied the early release from prison that his family and friends who went to wait for him to come out of the Tong Fuk Correctional Institution on Monday thought he would be given.

 

Known as Captain America 2.0 (because he often dressed up as the Marvel superhero during the 2019 pro-democracy protests), "Ma was convicted in 2021 for inciting secession and was initially sentenced to five years and nine months.  He appealed and the sentence was reduced to five years due to good behavior, earning him a one-third remission".

 

All this was before Article 23 came into effect, however.  And "While the city's law stipulates eligible prisoners can be released before their term ends, the new security law allows the government to deny such rights."  Which is what happened; making Ma the first known case of an individual denied freedom and penalised under Article 23.

Some further details from the Nikkei Asia article reporting this: "Ma Chun-man, a former delivery man who was found guilty of inciting secession on at least 20 occasions in public and on social media between August and November 2020. Ma was accused of chanting slogans advocating independence from China." Read that again: he CHANTED SLOGANS. (In other words, we are talking about speech crimes.)

 

Quoting again from the Nikkei Asia piece: "The new security law is more comprehensive than one that was imposed by Beijing in June 2020 to punish secession, subversion, terrorist activities and collusion with a foreign country or external forces that endangered national security. The new law includes treason, insurrection, theft of state secrets, sabotage against public infrastructure, including computer systems, and external interference in domestic affairs."  

 

At the same time, it's worth noting that Hong Kong's Basic Law also includes the following Articles:

Article 27:  Hong Kong residents shall have freedom of speech, of the press and of publication; freedom of association, of assembly, of procession and of demonstration; and the right and freedom to form and join trade unions, and to strike.

 

Article 28:  The freedom of the person of Hong Kong residents shall be inviolable.

No Hong Kong resident shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful arrest, detention or imprisonment. Arbitrary or unlawful search of the body of any resident or deprivation or restriction of the freedom of the person shall be prohibited. Torture of any resident or arbitrary or unlawful deprivation of the life of any resident shall be prohibited.

Article 29:  The homes and other premises of Hong Kong residents shall be inviolable. Arbitrary or unlawful search of, or intrusion into, a resident's home or other premises shall be prohibited.

Article 30:  The freedom and privacy of communication of Hong Kong residents shall be protected by law. No department or individual may, on any grounds, infringe upon the freedom and privacy of communication of residents except that the relevant authorities may inspect communication in accordance with legal procedures to meet the needs of public security or of investigation into criminal offences.

It remains to be seen though how strongly they will be upheld, especially vis a vis Article 23.  So, please, don't look away from what's happening in Hong Kong -- the original title of Humans Right Watch's Acting China Director Maya Wang's piece in the New York Times which bemoans, among other things, that "visitors to Hong Kong often fail to recognize the transformations taking place beneath the enduring glitz of the city", and cites a recent Pew Research Center survey having found that "more than 80 percent of Hong Kongers still want democracy, however remote that possibility looks today".

On the eve of Article 23 coming into effect

 

Poster seen in Hong Kong back in October 2014

 

This past Tuesday, Hong Kong's homegrown national security law (known as Article 23) was fast tracked through the territory's Legislative Council.  "With unanimous support from all 89 lawmakers, the bill is now set to take effect on March 23 — nearly a month earlier than many observers had expected,"  DW's Yuchen Li (in Taipei) and Phoebe Kong (in Hong Kong) reported.

"The specific laws will introduce a range of new offenses including treason, espionage, external interference and disclosure of state secrets – some of which are punishable by up to life in prison.  Following the first passage of a sweeping national security law Beijing imposed on Hong Kong in 2020, the latest bill is widely believed to further undermine the city's freedom and autonomy promised by Beijing after the region returned from British colonial rule in 1997," they continued.

In the days since, I've felt a range of emotions.  On Tuesday evening, I was much calmer than I thought I would be.  I'm not sure if it was because I was feeling numb, this news was very much expected (once Hong Kong Chief Secretary Eric Chan announced in early January that work on Article 23 would be completed this year) or still trying to process the news last Saturday that a Hong Kong court had sentenced 12 people (including popular actor Gregory Wong, activists Ventus Lau and Owen Chow, and former University of Hong Kong student union president Althea Suen) to between 54 and 82 months in prison over the storming of the city’s legislature council building during a pro-democracy protest in 2019.

 

While they already had been found and/or pleaded guilty earlier, the fact of the mattter is that their sentences are incredibly harsh.  For comparison, contrast and context, as was observed on Twitter: "Seven cops caught on camera beating a zip-tied protestor got 15–18 months; man who stabbed activist politician “Long Hair” with a metal chisel got 3 months; attacker of three at a Lennon Wall, incl a reporter who lost some lung and could’ve died if not hospitalized, got 45 months." 

 

Small wonder, then, that "Right after the court dismissed [for that case]," DW reporter Phoebe Kong witnessed "relatives, friends & supporters weep[ing] in each others' arms outside the courtroom. The sobs of an elderly woman had echoed & lingered for so long that she could barely stand."

 

As it so happened, I spent last Tuesday evening in the company of a friend who had been in that court.  I think being with that friend and similar minded people helped me to stay calm.  Meeting up and being with other friends in the days since has helped too: to, among other things, remind one another that we are still here, we still support one another, and we all still really f**king love Hong Kong.

 

So, here are the words and mantras I plan to live by for today and the coming days: Keep calm and carry on.  Live in truth.  Figure out what you can still do, and ga yau!

Thoughts triggered by reports that Article 23 will be passed (very) soon

  

Spotted in Hong Kong yesterday

 

Sharing some things I wrote on Twitter late last night after seeing the news that Article 23 would be gazetted today (with typos there hopefully corrected here):

 

Something many people outside of Hong Kong (still) don't seem to realise is that: People went on protest marches because Hong Kong didn't have democracy but they still felt the government would listen to over 500 thousand protest marchers. But when Carrie Lam didn't listen on June 9th and then 16th, 2019... 

 

Put another way: if we had genuine universal suffrage, there probably would not have been those mega protest marches. And what REALLY killed off the will to have those mega marches wasn't the national security law but the feeling/knowledge that the government WILL NOT LISTEN.

 

 Those people lamenting that Hongkongers have lost their courage and don't want to comment (on camera to the BBC, etc.) about Article 23: why should we risk arrest, jail, etc. when we knew/know what we say will just fall on deaf ears?

 

I mean. Think about it: 2 million people out of a population of some 7.5 million went out on the streets on June 16th, 2019. Young, elderly, some pregnant women, people on wheelchairs, etc. And still our message was ignored. And we -- non-violent protestors -- were derided as rioters. How insane is that?!

 

And for those who say 2 million is less than one third of the population: think of the people who couldn't attend that day -- who were working that day, in hospital, who happened to not be in Hong Kong that day, etc. And, also, that the majority of the voters on November 24th, 2019 voted for pro-democracy candidates.

 

And when you look at just 2019 (not even 2020, 2014, every July 1st from 2003, etc.), with protest rallies and marches taking place weekly (with some weeks and days having more than one event): we are talking about A LOT of (committed) people.

 

In sum: there were/are lots of people who wanted democracy, who didn't want Article 23 to be passed, who really f**king love Hong Kong. And that's what keeps us going (and the majority of us here): the knowledge that We. Are. Still. The. Majority. In. Hong. Kong!

 

And for the record: As Anna Kwok (yes, that Anna Kwok), noted: "Article 23 will likely pass next week"; with her Hong Kong Democracy Council noting that "the [Legislative Council's] Bills Committee will host special sessions on Saturday & Sunday to go through every provision of Article 23."

 

Today, I saw someone Tweet that after Article 23 is passed, he will delete his Twitter account.  And, sadly, I think he isn't the only one who will do so.  We saw this happen after China imposed the National Security Law on Hong Kong back in 2020 after all -- and what's been described as Hong Kong's own national security law is threatening to be quite a bit harsher and thus scarier.

 

I would be lying if I said that I've not thought about deleting my social media accounts and also this blog.  But I also got to thinking that if the Hong Kong government wanted/wants to go after me, they'd already have copied those of my writings they found/find offensive.  So if I delete this blog or Tweets, etc., it just means "the public" won't be able to read them -- as opposed to the authorities.

 

Consequently, they will stay.  Though for how much longer I will update them... well, let's see how it all goes (or not, as the case could be), shall we?  If nothing else, I learnt a long time ago to: a) never say never; and b) to not try to predict the future -- because so much has happened and can happen, both bad but also good, that we just really couldn't envisage or imagine until it all did! 

Thank you to Lionel Messi and his new Hong Kong haters for giving us opportunities to laugh (at the Hong Kong government)! :D

 

Actually, I reckon Messi's no longer welcomed in Hong Kong... :D

 

This has been one of those weeks that has left many Hong Kongers feeling depressed -- for good reason.  Certain court verdicts have seriously rankled.  (On the same day that the news came of Gregory Wong and co being found guilty of "rioting", the results of a survey made between May and November of last year by the Hong Kong Mental Health Association was released, showing that Hong Kongers’ depression levels have reached a record high, with the severe depression rating skyrocketing by over 30% compared to back in 2020.)  

 

The death of beloved actor Gregory Charles Rivers, apparently by suicide, has also hit some people hard; with it coming less than a month having passed since the suicide of another well known Hong Konger, former journalist and TVB news anchor, Ryan Lau -- who also made the news back in 2019 when he was one of the people attacked by a white-shirted gang in Yuen Long MTR station on the evening of July 21st. 

 

And then there's the spectre of Article 23.  Re that which has been billed as Hong Kong's own security law: a sign of how fearful it -- and the national security law that China imposed on Hong Kong back on June 30th, 2020 -- already has made Hong Kongers can be seen in a Hong Kong Free Press article about people's views about Article 23 having been run without any of the people quoted in it having their personal names listed for the record (and more than one of them not even wanting to have their surname known).

 

And yet, many people have endured and been (unexpectedly) resilient.  And still know how to laugh.  And today, Hong Kongers were given something to laugh about -- and unite to hate! -- by way of the PR fiasco that came by way of footballing superstar Lionel Messi having come with his Inter Miami team to Hong Kong but ended up not playing even been on the pitch for even one second of the friendly game in which he was supposed to be the star draw!

 

After the game (which saw Inter Miami play and beat a Hong Kong selection by 4 goals to 1 -- not that anyone seems to care about the result or anything besides the fact that Lionel Messi had not played!), the American club's coach, Gerardo Martino, told reporters that the club's medical team had taken the decision to bar Messi -- and teammate Luis Suarez -- from playing after an assessment this morning.  But the match organizers (Tatler Hong Kong) didn't disclose this to match attendees and even announced that he was a substitute in the stadium! 

Amazingly, Tatler Hong Kong had effectively guaranteed back on January 11th that all Inter Miami marquee stars, including Lionel Messi would be playing in what was billed as the Tatler XFEST Hong Kong fixture.  But during the game, it dawned on a number of the attendees at the match whose tickets were priced between HK$880 and HK$4,880 that they would not be seeing Messi play.  Cue boos and shouts for refunds!  And some more boos after the game when co-owner of Inter Miami, David Beckham, went onto the pitch to thank attendees for their "support"! 

 

So, okay, there were people genuinely upset by Lionel Messi's effective no show.   And I do feel for the children who went to see their hero, only to get heartbroken by not getting to see him play.  But the over-the-top reactions of such as Leung Chun-ying's daughter, Chai-yan, to what happened can be pretty funny.  (As is the thought of her being restrained from shouting in/to Messi's face that he was "not welcome[d]" anymore in the city by her father!)

 

And then there's the angry response of the Hong Kong government that came as a result of it getting hit with quite the PR disaster.  A lesson I wonder whether it will learn: "[T]is is what happens when you use taxpayers' money to subsidise multi-millionaire soccer players."  If not, it is going to give people more opportunities to laugh at it!

 

In the meantime, check out this Tweet by the Financial Times Hudson Locket IV: "Hong Kong's government paid HK$16m to cover the costs of the match, with 40,000 fans paying up to HK$4,880 apiece for a chance to see Messi. Every advertisement for the event featured his face front and center, only for him not to play for even a single second. I'd boo, too!" :D

A guilty verdict in a trial involving actor Gregory Wong gets people thinking that so much, if not everything, is wrong!

  

Still image of Gregory Wong at Admiralty from 

 Memories to Choke On, Drinks to Wash Them Down

 

This has been one of the weeks where so much has happened (including announcements that make people realize that the dreaded Article 23 may be pushed through faster than many of us had hoped) that I lost track of the days and thought for a time yesterday that today was going to be Friday, only to realize after a while that today's still just Thursday.  But let me focus today's blog post on just one subject: today's judgement by Magistrate Li Chi-ho at the end of a 34 trial in which six defendants stood accused of "rioting" on July 1st, 2019.  

 

Firstly, let's note for the record that Magistrate Li found four of the defendants, including actor Gregory Wong, guilty as charged.   We'll get back to Gregory Wong shortly but here's focusing now on the two defendants found not guilty of rioting: Wong Ka-ho, who was then a a reporter with a student publication at the City University of Hong Kong; and Ma Kai-chung, who then was a reporter with Passion Times.  Sadly, they did not get off scott free.  Specifically, Magistrate Li found the duo guilty of  "entering or staying in the precincts of the [Legislative Council] chamber" that a number of pro-democracy protestors had illegally stormed that day.

 

A reminder in a Hong Kong Free Press article about today's judgement of that event that was labelled "Taking Back the Legislature" (the title of a 2020 documentary film that I managed to view but which is no longer allowed to be screened in public in Hong Kong): "That night, protesters occupied the government building, smashing windows and spray-painting protest slogans on the walls. Some left by around 11 pm, according to the case details.  Police officers did not stop the storming. By the time officers entered the building, all protesters had left, according to a police watchdog report" (my emphasis).

 

As early as the night of July 1st, 2019, itself, people were pondering the following:"Seems possible, even probable, that the police and authorities in Hong Kong purposely retreated to create the circumstances and images that would justify a stronger backlash. Surely they had the means and the force to prevent the legislature being stormed... if they wanted to."  (This from France 24 journalist, James Creedon.)  

 

A little over a week later, Stephen Vines's July 9th, 2019, Hong Kong Free Press piece was headlined: Was Hong Kong's protestors' occupation of the legislature a dangerous trap laid by the police?" and in it, he noted that Fernando Cheung -- one of the many pro-democracy legislators (including the jailed  since February 28th, 2021, likes of Claudia Mo and Lam Cheuk-ting) who had tried in vain to stop protestors from breaking into the Legislative Council building -- had suggested precisely that.  And today's judgement looks to have proven Fernando Cheung, now no longer in Hong Kong (and, instead, one of the many Hongkongers who have emigrated in recent years to Canada) right.

 

Returning to Gregory Wong: he had pleaded not guilty and "told the court he entered the legislative council solely to deliver two chargers to reporters who were covering the break-in by protesters.  According to video evidence played by the prosecution, Wong left the chamber immediately after delivering the chargers to a reporter in a yellow vest."  And yet he was found guilty.  

The case magistrate, according to a Reuters report, "said Wong could have met the reporter outside the Legislative Council, so as to not "take risk to get in, and serve the purpose of helping others"."  According to an Associated Press (AP) report, magistrate Li also noted that Wong "had hugged a protester before leaving the chamber as an expression of support."  From this, magistrate Li surmised that Wong's “intention of entering the legislature is obvious, it is to join this riot"!

As a friend was moved to state upon hearing this: Jesus wept!  For as the Hong Kong netizen who goes by John dEFROG on Twitter pointed out: "This has been a common theme among all the rioting convictions: if you were on the scene and/or treated protesters like human beings and not one-dimensional villains, or you weren't actively trying to stop them, you're guilty of whatever they were doing."  And to follow up: "I've said it before, but I still believe this is the legal equivalent of being convicted of bank robbery because you were in or standing next to the bank while it was being robbed."

 

Also note what happened to another of the defendants, as detailed in the AP piece: Lam Kam-kwan "was convicted of rioting and a separate charge of criminal damage Thursday, had been detained in mainland China in August 2019 and had been forced to write a repentance letter. Lam said some Hong Kong police officers later met him and told him that if he would not admit his wrongdoing, he then could not return to the city."  Does that sound like a forced confession to you?  Because that's what it sounds like to me!

 

For the record: this was a jury-less trial.  I can imagine a trial by jury producing different verdicts.  So, yeah, it can feel when reading judgements like today's that, to quote a lawyer in a legal drama that did involve a jury trial -- and which I described in my review of it as representing "wishful thinking or plain fantasy on the part of its makers.  Or, alternatively, a reminder of how justice should be served" -- like "Everything is wrong", sadly enough! :(

A strange week for me, and quite the rubbish week for Hong Kong!

  

A reminder (from a member of the Yellow Economic Circle) 

that self care is important

 

This has been a bit of a strange week for me.  One evening saw me so very upset by something I read that I could feel my blood pressure rising, my actually feeling hot in the head and my hands literally shaking.  Another saw me feeling reflective and depressed post viewing a film looking at traumatic family experiences and how their effects are felt for decades.  And a third had me so affected by a late night discussion about what's been lost in Hong Kong in recent years that I ended up literally having a dream in which I detailed to my mother all the the things about pre national security law Hong Kong that I now miss so much.

 

Hence my not having been in the right frame of mind to do any blogging.  And all this while, life goes on and events like the national security law trial of Jimmy Lai continue to take place; with this week seeing the first witness for the prosecution take the stand.  Here's the thing though: I can't quite figure out from the reports what Cheung Kim-hung, the former publisher of the now-defunct Apple Daily, has said of his former boss that is actually incriminating!

For example, on Wednesday, Cheung said of his old boss that "“Mr. Lai has a very clear image. He advocates for democracy, freedom, and opposes totalitarianism".  Doesn't that sound more like an endorsement and praise than condemnation?  Also, what's illegal about that?!

 

Cheung also "said Lai, in 2019, told his senior editorial staff that the government proposal to amend the city’s extradition arrangement was an “infringement of Hongkonger’s democracy, freedom and human rights,” and the Chinese Communist Party would use the amendment to send “thorns in their side” to stand trial in the mainland."  Again, what's wrong and illegal about that?

 

And there's this: “Mr. Lai’s instruction was to use Apple Daily to encourage people to take to the street, to put up resistance [against the government],” Cheung said."  A reminder: not all street protests are illegal; especially those which are non-violent and got letters of no objection from the police -- which was the case with the vast majority of the anti-extradition bill and pro-democracy protest marches and rallies that took place in 2019, the year that Jimmy Lai gave those instructions.

 

As for this: "On the international level, Mr. Lai wanted to draw the attention from western democratic countries, hoping that they would offer some help, even some stronger measures such as placing sanctions on Chinese and Hong Kong officials.”  Again, this doesn't sound illegal or criminal to me.  Especially before China's imposition of the national security law on Hong Kong on June 30th, 2020!

In all honesty, much of what's going on these days doesn't seem to make much sense to me at all.  A case in point: the waste tax fiasco that had much of Hong Kong in uproar in recent days.  As Ming Pao journalist Alvin Lum noted, only partly -- even if actually -- in jest, "Forget about Article 23. The biggest challenge for officials might be waste charging"!

 

Another crazy thing that happened in Hong Kong this week: the M+ museum being made to not mention the name of a film that they nonetheless were allowed to screen.  (For the record: it was Beijing Bastards, a 1993 drama directed by Zhang Yuan!) Prompting the Federation of Hong Kong Filmmakers' spokesperson, Tenky Tin, to ask the entirely valid question: “From the point of view of a regular filmgoer, one has to wonder, how can you sell tickets for a film without disclosing its name?"!

 

Even more disturbingly, this week also saw the Hong Kong Arts Development Council (HKADC) withdraw its support for an annual drama awards ceremony, citing “inappropriate” arrangements last year and warning the organisers they must not breach the law; resulting in the Hong Kong Federation of Drama Societies (HKFDS) – which organises the Hong Kong Drama Awards -- not only losing its subsidy from the government advisory body but, also, being denied a venue to stage it after the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) also told the drama federation that it would not be offering a venue for the event this year!

 

Rather than accept the HKADC's decision though, the HKFDS actually decided to publicly challenge it!  On Friday morning, the HKFDS's chairperson, Luther Fung , called a press conference to “defend the theatre industry’s dignity.”  In response to the HKADC's objections to two of last year's awards presenters having been  political cartoonist Wong Kei-kwan, known as Zunzi, and journalist Bao Choy, Fung asserted that "Zunzi is a veteran cartoonist – are cartoons not art? Choy is a documentary director – are documentaries not art?"

 

Addressing the HKADC, he said: ""You made an official decision without giving us a chance to defend ourselves, and that came as a shock to us,”... adding that there had been no official meetings between the council and the federation over the funding issue.  “We demand a clarification, and for accusations to be retracted — we will not file a so-called appeal,” said Fung. “[We’re] poor, but we have a backbone!”"

 

To which I say "kudos"!  And long may Hong Kongers have backbones and not be as easily bullied as the bullies might think and hope!

Just two days into 2024 and I already worry that it won't be a happy new year!

I like the color of these flowers I spotted on a hike

yesterday (New Year's Day, 2024)

 

It's just the second day of the new year and I don't want to be a kill joy but I worry that 2024 may be worse than 2023.  Some portends that are not good: the killing of Palestinian civilians continuing on New Year's Day; ditto the war in Ukraine caused by Russia's invasion in February 2022; ditto the civil war in Myanmar which massively escalated in May 2021; etc. And to add to it, there being a massive earthquake in the Noto Peninsula of Ishikawa Prefecture in Japan yesterday -- though, thankfully, all tsunami warnings issued in association with it have now been lifted.

 

And then there's Hong Kong where, as per an RTHK report: "Safeguarding national security will continue to be Hong Kong's top priority, Chief Secretary Eric Chan said on Monday [i.e., New Year's Day], as he vowed to complete work for Basic Law Article 23 security legislation within this year."

 

A reminder: China imposed a national security law on Hong Kong on June 30th, 2020, which remains very much in effect and has sowed so much fear along with actual political persecution in the city. Basic Law Article 23 would effectively be Hong Kong's domestic version of a national security law -- one which has been opposed for decades by Hongkongers. Indeed, back on July 1st, 2003, over 500,000 people took part in a protest march against it -- and in the aftermath, the then Chief Executive of Hong Kong, Tung Chi-wah, felt obliged to resign, as did the then Security Chief, one Regina Ip.

 

Back to yesterday's RTHK piece: "On social media, Chan said the upcoming legislation, together with the existing national security law, will more effectively prevent, stop and punish acts endangering national security." So... Chan thinks Hong Kong is still not... secure?! (In other words: Hong Kong is still not back (to normal)? Re that last bit: if so, he and I are in agreement; albeit for different reasons!) 

 

Another bit from that piece: "Meanwhile, the number of visitors to Hong Kong topped 30 million in the first 11 months of last year, Chan said, adding that the government will continue to hold different international events and drive the local economy." 

 

While at first glance, that sounds impressive, do bear in mind though that that's still just around half of the number of visitors attracted to Hong Kong in 2018; and that the vast majority of Hong Kong's visitors, then but especially now, are from Mainland China rather than the rest of the world. So I really am not so sure how valid Hong Kong's description of itself as "Asia's World City" is anymore.

 

One more quote from the RTHK piece: "He also called on new district councillors to respond to people's urgent needs and concerns." Note: That would the new district councillors who gained seats in the District Council "election" last month which only 27.5% of registered voters decided to take part in -- as opposed to 71.2% for the 2019 District Council election -- for whatever reason (e.g., they couldn't be bothered to take part in something they considered a sham, couldn't find any candidate they actually believed would help them/Hong Kong, etc.)

 

So... happy new year? I would love for it to be so. But I already worry. And I think I have good reason to.  Still, if I were to look for a good portend: yesterday saw Hong Kong beat China 2-1 in a football match; the first time Hong Kong's footballers recorded a victory over China's in 29 years (or is it 38? -- in any case, it's a pretty historic victory!)  And granted that China had two players sent off (and an assistant coach) over the course of the game -- so were handicapped by having two players fewer than Hong Kong for part of the game.  But in some ways, that makes the whole thing even more hilarious (and yes, it's indeed good to have something to laugh about -- and so early into 2024 too)! :)