Hong Kong: Final Days of Freedom tries to keep the spotlight on Hong Kong (even) in 2024 (Film review)

  

Poster for a documentary, not anime

Hong Kong: Final Days of Freedom (U.S.A.-Hong Kong, 2024)

- Sean Fleck, director, writer and co-producer (with Alan Parks)

 

Back in 2020, Hong Kong protest documentary short Anders Hammer's Do Not Split was nominated for an Oscar.  One year later, Kiwi Chow's Revolution of Our Times had its world premiere at the Cannes film festival.  Five years on from the anti-extradition bill-turned-pro-democracy protests that captured the world's attention, films continue to be made about Hong Kong and its protest movement.  And while I've not managed to view James Leong's If We Burn (2023) and the anonymously made She's In Jail (2024), about imprisoned lawyer-activist Chow Hang-tung, I've managed to view Hong Kong: Final Days of Freedom here in Hong Kong.

 

Made by American documentary filmmaker Sean Fleck, Hong Kong: Final Days of Freedom is so newly made that it includes information about the passing of Article 23 into law, something which took place barely two months ago.  Incredibly, the pretty comprehensive work also has some coverage of such as the Article 23 protests of 2003, the National Education protests of 2012, the Occupy phase of the Umbrella Movement in 2014, the bookseller abductions of 2015 and Causeway Books' Lam Wing-kee's post-escape revelations before getting to its main subject matter: the 2019 protests and what's happened to, and in, Hong Kong since.

 

Although its poster may make it seem otherwise, Hong Kong: Final Days of Freedom is a seriously legit work that takes a far from cartoony approach to Hong Kong, and the anti-extradition bill-turned-pro-democracy protests that raged on the streets for much of 2019 and into 2020 before Covid (then known as Wuhan coronavirus) woes got Hongkongers fixating on the pandemic over protests.  Witness, for example, its coverage of the peaceful -- and very large number of -- Hong Kong protestors (known as the wo lei fei who were "peaceful, rational and non-violent") as well as the frontline protestors known as "the braves" (that such as Do Not Split had focused -- I'd even say fixated -- on).

Hong Kong: Final Days of Freedom also includes interview footage with a number of political personalities like exiled dissidents Frances Hui, Joey Siu, Samuel Chu and Jeffrey Ngo --  and Lee Cheuk-yan, a Tiananmen Square Massacre survivor and former trade unionist, activist and politician who's been behind bars ever since he was arrested and denied bail on February 28th, 2021.  By the way, it was somewhat disconcerting to see the senior man in the documentary -- especially those sections of it that spoke in what might be termed "the ethnographic present" -- since he's not appeared in public (excluding his court appearances) for more than three years now.

 

Hong Kong: Final Days of Freedom also has interviews with a number of Hong Kong protestors whose faces and actual names are not revealed.  This is understandable since those people were taking a risk by appearing in this documentary -- even if they were only providing personal accounts and factual information about the pro-democracy protests.  (And, frankly, I'm also possibly putting myself at risk/in danger by revealing that I've seen the film and in reviewing it.  Such is the state of -- and life in -- national security era Hong Kong!)

Sean Fleck's documentary additionally contains interviews with a number of American politicians (including Republicans Mike Gallagher and Michelle Steel but also Democrats Raja Krishnomoorthi and Jake Auchincloss).  Although they come from, and represent, both sides of the ideological aisle, my sense is that this might weaken whatever messages that Hong Kong: Final Days of Freedom seeks to make -- on account of the documentary being perceived as (primarily/wholely) targeted to Americans.

 

This is a pity since I actually think that Hong Kong: Final Days of Freedom tries hard to be even-handed even while also being largely on the side of pro-demcracy Hong Kongers; something the way it chooses to conclude makes pretty clear.  Also, the quote from George Orwell's 1984 that the work chooses to open with it is says so much: i.e., "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears.  It is their final, most essential command"; this all the more so due to it having been superimposed over a Maoist propaganda poster!

My rating for this film: 7.5

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!

Jimmy Lai's national security law trial dominates the Hong Kong news on the first week of the new year

Never not feel shocked at seeing Jimmy Lai pictured 

in chains on the front pages of his own newspaper -- 

this from back in May 2021, when Apple Daily still existed

 

Jimmy Lai's national security law trial has finally got going in earnest this week.  On the first working day of 2024, the former media mogul formally "pleaded not guilty to conspiring to collude with foreign forces and publishing “seditious” materials".  "Wearing a dark-coloured jacket and a white shirt, the 76-year-old founder of pro-democracy newspaper Apple Daily, addressed the court for the first time on Tuesday since the trial began on December 18" and effectively confirmed that he's not going to go down without a fight even though the odds are clearly stacked against him thanks to his trial being jury-less and presided over by three judges handpicked by the authorities.

The prosecution begun delivering its opening statement after Lai had submitted his not guilty pleas.  And pretty soon, it became obvious that some -- if not all -- of the aspects of the arguments it seeks to make can seem very questionable from the viewpoints of many observers.

For example, the court was given a list of people named as “co-conspirators” that included a former US consul-general to Hong Kong (James Cunningham), the founder of the Global Magnitsky Justice Campaign (Bill Browder) and a former Japanese Member of the Diet (Japanese Parliament) (Shiori Kanno).  This even though Jimmy Lai had never met or spoken to some of them -- this according to some of them (E.g., Bill Browder)!  And here's this from another person named as a co-conspirator -- Hong Kong Watch's Benedict Rogers: "People who simply campaigned for democracy deemed "co-conspirators" with Jimmy Lai[.] People who simply spoke with him are "collaborators"[.] Who next? Everyone who bought Apple Daily?"

Then, on Wednesday, the prosecutors sought to make a big deal out the fact that Jimmy Lai "Followed" a number of foreign politicians on Twitter.  (Note: This was actually mentioned back in December 2020, and thought to be absurd then!)  In a sign of how weak such a charge is, even at least one of the three national security judges presiding over the case, Alex Lee, didn't find this all that damning. “He’s interested in international affairs, so?” was apparently his reaction!

Rather understandably, Caoilfhionn Gallagher, the British King's Counsel who's the leader of Jimmy Lai's international team, was moved to Tweet that: "Today’s developments in [Jimmy Lai’s] trial are ludicrous. It is now clear he is being tried for: conspiracy to commit journalism; conspiracy to talk about politics to politicians; & conspiracy to raise human rights concerns with human rights organisations. This farce must end."

But continue, it has.  And so has the pointing out of holes galore in the prosecution's case.  For example, yesterday (Thursday) saw Samuel Bickett (who, remember, is a trained lawyer as well as a political activist) pointing out that "the prosecutor [had] focused on ads Lai allegedly funded calling for the world to support Hong Kong’s [extradition bill turned pro-democracy] protests. They were published in Aug 2019, almost a year before Beijing imposed the [National Security] Law under which Jimmy is now charged".  

Here's the issue: "It is a fundamental principle that laws only apply to future acts, not past ones. For Jimmy, the court is simply choosing to ignore that principle. Beijing said in the lead up to the NSL’s passage that the law would not be applied retroactively." (See this for the record.)

Yesterday also saw Jimmy Lai's international legal team file an urgent appeal with the United Nations special rapporteur on torture regarding one of the key prosecution witnesses in Lai’s trial; pointing out that "there is “credible evidence” that Andy Li, a 33-year-old former pro-democracy activist, was tortured while in prison in mainland China before he confessed to allegedly conspiring with Lai to collude with foreign forces." (For more details, see this Washington Post piece by Shibani Mahtani, and the book by her and Timothy McLaughlin that it's excerpted from, Among the Braves: Hope, Struggle, and Exile in the Battle for Hong Kong and the Future of Democracy (Hachette Books, 2023) -- which, against the odds, there are copies of here in Hong Kong.)  

As this farce proceeds, it's worth reading the following musings by Bloomberg's Matthew Brooker:  

In their quieter moments, do the more sensible people in Beijing ever wonder where the likes of CY Leung have led them to in Hong Kong. We are still waiting for the evidence of foreign black hands [behind the Umbrella Movement] that CY promised us almost a decade ago. And now look where we are…

They have destroyed businesses, jailed dozens of politicians and incarcerated 76-year-old Jimmy Lai on sedition and collusion charges — and still they have nothing to show for it, except the most mundane innocent contacts that are part and parcel of everyday life for journalists.

Lai is accused of doing what everyone else did in Hong Kong - including pro-Beijing politicians - in talking to foreign diplomats. And for this, they trashed Hong Kong’s international reputation and undermined trust in its rule of law. Do they think they got their money’s worth?

What they have produced so far couldn’t even be called thin gruel. It is nothing at all. All they have demonstrated is that they have no idea of how Hong Kong society functioned - no understanding of the distinct way of life they undertook to preserve.

Beijing always had the power to do this, whatever its promises. But was wrecking Hong Kong in this way really in China’s interests? It’s easy to see what it has lost, much harder to discern what it has gained.

The silent majority made its collective voice heard and broke records by staying away from the 2023 District Council "election"!

  

The kind of advertising I wish Hong Kong had less of!

 

Yesterday morning, I was awoken by my phone ringing.  When I answered, I heard an automated message asking me to please go out and vote in the District Council "election".  Or at least, I think I did because I was only half awake and really wanted to just go back to sleep!  Then, later in the day, before a film screening properly got underway, a message (in three languages -- Cantonese, English and Mandarin) was aired asking people to go vote.  You could almost hear as well as smell the desperation of those trying so hard to avoid yesterday's event having a record low turnout!

 

Alas, for those folks, it was all in vain.  Despite the crazy amounts of advertising all over Hong Kong, in the words of CNN's Nectar Gan, "Hong Kongers on Sunday delivered another apparent snub to China’s “patriots only” overhaul of the city’s electoral system, as local polls that barred the opposition from standing drew the lowest turnout in decades."  

 

Over on Twitter, Joel Chan was keeping tabs by the hour of the electoral turnout and very early on, it was evident that the turnout was low for the first national security law-era District Council "election" and on course to not be anywhere near the 71.2% voter turnout of the 2019 truly democratic district council election that had some 2.94 million Hong Kongers casting their votes and saw the pro-democrats win by a landslide.  Heck, by lunchtime, Chan was forecasting that the total votal turnout would not be able to match, never mind exceed, the 30.2% voter turnout of the 2021 Legislative Council "election"!   

 

Actually, a friend of mine had confidently predicted this weeks ago -- based on what she had seen and heard and knew about her fellow Hongkongers!)  And so it came to pass.  With not even the voting time being extended to midnight (due to voter registration system problems!) being able to help much at all!  

 

To put it mildly, the final voter count of 1,193,193 votes and voting percentage of 27.5% looks absolutely pathetic when compared to 2019!  And for the record: the 2023 District Council "election" had the lowest ever voting percentage; lower even than any of the District Council elections held before the Handover as well as being the lowest among those held after!  For whereas in 2019, the "silent majority" that the authorities had assumed was on their side went out and voted for the pro-democrats, this time around, the "silent majority" decided against taking part in what was widely seen as sham elections.  

 

"[F]or context", as the Twitter account known as John deFROG pointed out: "the election yesterday was for 88 seats out of 470 (with 27 for rural committee chairs, and the rest either appointed by govt or elected by small pro-Beijing committees), so the pro Beijing camp already controlled 382 seats before the voting even started."  And not content with cutting the number of elected seats on the District Councils from more than 90 percent down to 20 percent back in May of this year, the authorities also made it so that there was not a single pro-democracy candidate running in the "election".

 

So, although those not following what's been happening in Hong Kong for the past four years may not realize, actually, Hong Kong voters have delivered the same message once again: that we want genuine universal suffrage (which, remember, is one of protestors' "five demands" and the sole "demand" of the Umbrella Movement back in 2014).  

 

And speaking of protestors: three members of the League of Social Democrats, including chairwoman Chan Po-ying, were stopped and arrested yesterday on their way to protest the city’s “patriots-only” District Council "election".  (A measure of the deterioration of freedoms in Hong Kong can be seen in their being able to carry out their protest of the Legislative Council "election" just two years ago, in 2021.)  And it's looking like they will be charged -- like another League of Social Democrats member, Koo Sze-chiu, who was arrested on Friday -- with sedition.

 

Others arrested yesterday include a 41-year-old government employee and her husband on suspicion of inciting others to cast invalid votes by commenting on a social media post which urged voters to put three or more ticks on their ballot paper.  A sixth individual, a 51-year-old female clerk, was arrested -- by the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), as opposed to the police (national security or otherwise) -- "for allegedly calling on others to write their names and identity card numbers on the ballot papers, which would render the votes invalid."

 

On the subject of spoilt votes: It's turned out that 22,045 of the votes cast yesterday were declared invalid.  Was this primarily the result of a "spoilt votes" campaign or human error, particularly on the part of elderly and/or less-educated voters who are prone to this?  We will never know.  But what's known is that it's close to double the number of spoiled votes in 2019 (which was 12,097).   Finally, one election statistic that's higher in 2023 than 2019! 

Absolutely NOT in a celebratory mood on China's National Day

Yesterday in Hong Kong. (Just imagine how many more

cops there would have been on the street today.)

 

Any mood one has to celebrate anything quickly dissipates

when seeing the police (vehicles included)
 

The proverbial "they" say that "A picture paints a thousand words".  I trust that the above images tell you that Hong Kong is NOT back (to normal).  And that the prevailing mood is far more police state than "Happy Hong Kong" -- so much so that when this evening's fireworks display began, my first thoughts involved "Hong Kong is being bombed" and a thunderstorm having arrived to rain on non-existent parades rather than, well, anything festive in nature.  

 

And oh, I'll spare you the images of tens of thousands of literally red flags on display in various parts of the territory -- including inside a Church of England cathedral! -- as I frankly have already seen enough of them -- particularly after Hong Kong's second, scarier Handover -- to last a lifetime.  This even though I did NOT venture out of my apartment all of today (though some brave, defiant souls did).

 

Should you wish to view more photos though, here's a link to my blog post from nine years ago today.  Frankly though, viewing that blog entry saddens me more when viewing it today.  Because, well, we had so much hope then... especially compared to now.     

 

My blog post from four years ago also makes for sad reading (what with it including a report of a young man -- who we now know is named Tsang Chi-kin -- having been shot by the police that day).  At the same time though, re-reading those blog entries only makes me convinced that the resistance needs to go on; this not least because people were indeed right to demand to have genuine universal suffrage and protest against police brutality then, and still are.  

Nine years on from the beginning of the Umbrella Movement

  

A glass I got from Chickeeduck with an image that helps ensure 

that I don't forget  the Umbrella Movement

 

My blog entry from nine years ago today.  And seven years ago today.  And six years ago today.  And four years ago today.  And three years ago today.  And two years ago today.  Suffice to say that I've not forgotten the (start of) the Umbrella Movement.  And that remembering it is something that is part of ensuring that Hong Kong will not be a part of the People's Republic of Amnesia (which, for me, is not only about forgetting what happened in Mainland China on June 4th, 1989, but, also, what's happened  to Hong Kong since its Handover by the British to China).            

In the words of Milan Kundera (which, of course, was quoted in the recently banned short story Our Time): 'The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting".  And for the record, this is what preceded those lines: "The first step in liquidating a people is to erase its memory. Destroy its books, its culture, its history. Then have somebody write new books, manufacture a new culture, invent a new history. Before long that nation will begin to forget what it is and what it was..."

 

So, remember, remember... not just the 5th of November and 4th of June but also the 28th of September, the 9th, 12th and 16th of June, the 21st of July, the 31st of August, etc.  And, also, remember that "Resistance is not futile" (and even the Borg can be, and were, defeated)!.

The Hong Kong government doesn't always get its way -- in Hong Kong, never mind other parts of the world!

  

Hong Kong in 2023: still really beautiful but also far more

repressive (and under surveillance) than many of us would like

 

Yesterday saw two interesting decisions made involving Hong Kong.  The first, made half a world away over in the U.S.A., involved that country's government announcing that it would not be extending an invitation to Hong Kong’s chief executive to visit San Francisco during November’s Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit.  As the report on this in The Guardian stated: "John Lee, Hong Kong's top official, was placed under US sanctions in 2020 because of his role in implementing what Washington deems a “draconian” national security law when he was the city’s security secretary."  

 

For those who need reminding: China imposed its national security law on Hong Kong on June 30th, 2020. And although John Lee only became Hong Kong's Chief Executive on July 1st, 2022, he was the Chief Secretary in Carrie Lam's administration (i.e., her deputy between June 25th, 2021 to April 7th, 2022) and Secretary for Security (between July 1st, 2017 and June 25th, 2021) prior to that.

 

Put another way: John Lee occupied a senior role in the Hong Kong government when what's sometimes referred to as "Hong Kong's second handover" occured and, also, in 2019, when Carrie Lam  attempted to introduce an extradition bill that led millions of people to take to the streets in protest for much of that year and into 2020 too. Oh, and before that, he was the chief of police -- and, in 2014, when the Umbrella Movement came into being thanks in no small part to the police firing tear gas onto unarmed Hong Kongers, Undersecretary for Security under Leung Chun-ying!

 

Back to The Guardian article:"In its 2020 designation of Lee, the US treasury department said he had been involved in the “coercing, arresting, detaining, or imprisoning” of people in the Chinese autonomous city who had protested against the national security law.  A state department spokesperson said the participation of all delegations in Apec events will be “in accordance with US laws and regulations and on the basis of the spirit and principles” of the organisation."

 

And that's that -- or is it?  Because the Hong Kong government doesn't want to accept that decision; stating that "The US should “fulfil its duty as the host” and invite Hong Kong Chief Executive John Lee to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in San Francisco"!  

 

Here's the thing though: the Hong Kong government doesn't always get what it wants.  Even in Hong Kong itself.  Witness the second interesting decision of note that was reached and announced yesterday -- involving the injunction it has sought to block the dissemination online of popular pro-democracy anthem, Glory to Hong Kong.  After delays (the first hearing date for this application was back on June 12th (of this year)) and a change in presiding judge (after the first one, Wilson Chan, got involved in a plagiarism scandal!), judge Anthony Chan ruled against the Hong Kong government in a landmark decision!

 

As noted in an AP article: "The development was a setback for Hong Kong leaders who are trying to crush a pro-democracy movement.  They have been embarrassed when Glory to Hong Kong — written during mass protests against the government in 2019 — was mistakenly played at international sporting events instead of China’s national anthem, March of the Volunteers."

 

This development and news was greeted with surprise and also relief by many, including those, like me, who feared that the granting of the injunction would push Google, and other internet platforms and companies to pull out of Hong Kong -- and, in so doing, cause the Great Firewall of China to encircle the territory.  To Eric Lai, visiting researcher of King’s College London’s School of Law, "[t]he ruling reflects that the court still wants to defend the integrity of the city’s legal system".

 

To be sure, there is a sense among many that the respite may only be temporary as, frankly, the Hong Kong government still has many weapons up its sleeve.  As the AP article goes on to note, "some analysts cautioned [that] the court’s decision on Friday does not mean that foreign tech giants can from now on let down their guard in Hong Kong, and said that political challenges surrounding their operations in the financial hub still linger."  

 

Some quotes from George Chen, former head of public policy for Greater China at Meta, sum up what lies ahead.  “Now the ball is back to the government but it doesn’t mean platforms can relax”.  Also: since "the city is now a “highly political place", Friday's development "may feel more like Season 1 of a long series”.   

 

So it'd be good for people who care about what's happening to and in Hong Kong (if not for itself, then for what it portends for the rest of the world) to stay tuned rather than tune out, thinking it's all over!  All in all, I think it worth pointing out that the Hong Kong story actually is far from over and, also, is not always as predictable as some people are too inclined to think it is!

On an emotional rollercoaster in recent days thanks to Twitter (or should it now be X?)!

  

A blue (and black) bird I briefly spotted in Victoria Harbour (So 

briefly that I couldn't get as clear a shot of it as I would have liked!)

 

I've been on an emotional rollercoaster over the past 72 hours thanks to Twitter (or, X, as it looks to have been rebranded by the man who referred to himself for a time as the Chief Twit).  Things were as usual (or, at least, as usual as they have been since Elon Musk's takeover) when I logged out of the platform on Saturday night.  But when I logged in on Sunday morning, I got a notice that my account had been suspended!

 

Some time back, my account had been temporarily disabled.  In that case, seconds after I Tweeted what was alleged to be an offensive Tweet, I was informed of that decision and, also, of which Tweet had specifically triggered it.  Because of the specificity of that information, I was able to quickly ascertain what had happened: i.e., that Twitter had mistaken a Cantonese surname I had typed out (Ho) to be an American slang that is a pejorative (as in the shortform of whore!).  And after I appealed Twitter's disabling decision by pointing that out, I received an acknowledgement within minutes that I was indeed correct (and had not been offensive!) and my account was quickly fully operational soon after.

 

This time around though, I wasn't informed of what Tweet had triggered the suspension.  So in the email exchange with regards to my appeal, I couldn't be as specific and merely stated that there must have been a mistake in suspending my account since I didn't think I had done anything wrong!  And the automated reply I received seemed rather vague too: a "we will look into it" and "it might take around 3-5 days to make a decision" kind of affair!

 

For those who haven't realized: I got a Twitter account back in August 2021 -- and/but even though I've been on that social media site less than two years (and for far shorter time than I've had a blog and Facebook account), it's been the place where I feel like I'm shouting into a void the least.  After Elon Musk took over though, I have had moments when I feared that Twitter would (suddenly) die; so I've now also established an account over at Bluesky.  And for a couple of days, I've felt like I experienced what it's like to have Twitter dead -- with my not having been able to access Twitter on Sunday, and all of yesterday too!   

 

While there are a number of people/accounts that I interact with only on Twitter, there are some who I now also interact with on Bluesky (and others on Facebook, or/and *gasp* in "meatspace" (as opposed to cyberspace)).  On Sunday, I alerted the latter group to my Twitter suspension predicament.  Many of these friends and allies then went and spread the word on Twitter, and (even) appealed to Twitter Support to unsuspend my account on my behalf!

 

Late on Sunday, and also at various points on Monday, I got word (on Bluesky primarily) that I was far from the only person who had had their Twitter account suspended during that 24-48 hour period.  The more I heard about this, the more I moved away from my initial suspicions that my account suspension had been the result of mass reporting by wumao and/or tankies (as has been the case for some "yellow" (i.e., pro-democracy) Hong Kongers) or that I somehow had caught the attention and incurred the ire of the Chief Twit -- and more towards the idea that Twitter was experiencing its equivalent of Instagram's account suspension glitch last October.  

Even so, I was not prepared to be told (by a friend) when I got onto Facebook this morning that my Twitter account had been unsuspended/reinstated!  Cue disbelief at first, then relief upon getting confirmation that it was the case.  And after successfully logging (back) onto Twitter and seeing the "Welcome back" messages and those to Twitter Support on my behalf, I must say I'm feeling really happy -- and both appreciative and appreciated!  

 

It is really nice to know that I have friends and allies who really went to bat for me.  And while there are some who think their actions had no effect, I like to think otherwise.  At the very least, I think they helped Twitter to figure out that there were accounts being suspended for no good reason and got it to fix the wrongs (and, hopefully, the glitch that caused it all)!   

And yes, I'll draw an analogy there with what's happening in Hong Kong and the world in general.  In that I do think it's better to make some noise about injustices and things that are wrong.  Okay, they may fall on deaf ears (a lot of the time).  But sometimes they might not.  In which case, silence would not have been the answer or as much help as those who went about pointing out the wrongs, right? :)

Making a point to be "yellow", lift up the spirit and "connect" (in protest and against the odds) this weekend

  

See the words "Stay Strong" and "Hong Kong" on shop fronts

and "Be Water" on the umbrella? :)

 

Call it rebelliousness on my part.  But after I saw all those cops out on Friday (and literal red flags -- of China (and to a lesser extent Hong Kong -- as in there really were fewer of them out about!) flying in abundance in recent days), I decided that I needed to go out and really support the Yellow Economic Circle yesterday and today! 

 

And while it's true that I do tend to regularly eat at "yellow" (i.e., pro-democracy) restaurants (and make a point to avoid "blue" (pro-Beijing/police) ones), this weekend saw me eating out ONLY at "yellow" eateries, shopping from "yellow" shops (including a bookshop and one specialising in "yellow" merchandise) and going and watching "yellow" movies at a "yellow" cinema.  In other words, spending my money in a way that supports and helps my allies.  (And for the record: yes, this is entirely possible to do!)    

Doing so helped to lift up my spirit quite a bit.  Much more, I know, than if I had stayed and stewed at home.  This not least because, then, I'd have spent quite a bit of time on the internet and social media -- and thus been even more upset than I already am by Elon Musk's decision last night to not only limit access to Tweets for those who haven't registered to be Twitter users but also those who have (with the current "temporary" for non-"blue" checkmarked users being able to READ -- not Tweet -- just 1,000 Tweets a day; which has been estimated to mean 1 hour on Twitter or less!).

For those who aren't on Twitter (which is still the majority of the friends I have in "meat space" (as opposed to "cyber space"): this probably will not seem like a big deal at all.  But despite my having been on that social media site for less than two years (not long at all -- as some people have been there for more than 10 years), I really do feel that I've become a part of a community that has a number of members that I value there; this despite my not having met the vast majority of them in real life -- or even knowing their real names (since many of us use pseudonyms there)!

Re the last: this means that if or when Twitter dies, it will cause me to lose contact with many of the people I regularly interact though -- with little knowledge and ability on our parts to (re-)connect elsewhere!  (So... I sincerely hope that, among other things, they realise that I have this blog and can contact me through it!)

Speaking of feeling connected to strangers: I came across a very good 2006 Christian Science Monitor piece on Audrey Eu (how different and much better Hong Kong would be if someone like her could have been its Chief Executive *sigh*!) where, among other things, she shared her experiences of the July 1st, 2003 march against Article 23 in terms that allied with my memories of many other years' July 1st marches (and many of the marches that took place in 2019):

We didn't expect a half-million people at all. We knew it would be big, but didn't expect 500,000. It was an extremely hot day, and everyone was literally withering under the sun. It was quite a strenuous walk. There were many bottlenecks and we were often stuck for a very long time. At one place we were stuck for nearly an hour.

"But people were buying soft drinks, handing them out, and everyone was very happy and in a jovial mood. People were passing around mints, sweets; it was like a family - a huge family outing where we all know each other, and feel like we are all seeing a bosom friend. People weren't known to each other, but they were all connecting.

Sadly, of course, there was no pro-democracy march yesterday.  But trust me when I say that I felt connections to others, including complete strangers, at the members of the Yellow Economic Circle that I spent time in this weekend.  And also whenever I saw such as people holding up yellow umbrellas this (rainy) weekend, in yellow (as well as black) clothing and/or wearing yellow or black masks in the street.  

More than by the way, on two separate occasions today, I found myself walking (with a similar marker of "yellow Hong Konger" identity) behind people with yellow umbrellas.  And I must say: it really did feel good; not least because it helped confirm for me that at least some -- and, I truly believe, the majority of -- those people I walked along the march route with on many an occasion are still around and really f**king loving Hong Kong.

Yellow rubber ducks (one still inflated; one deflated) in a part of the world for which yellow has a special meaning (Photo-essay)

Back in 2013, a giant yellow rubber duck came over to Hong Kong to visit.  For some reason, it didn't capture my fancy.  So, unlike with French artist Paulo Grangeon's 1,600 paper mache pandas installations (which Hong Kong played host to in June 2014), I actually don't have any photos from ten years ago of the "seriously over-sized bath toy" that was Dutch artist Florentijn Hofman's creation.  And if truth be told, I hadn't planned on going and snapping photos of the two 18-meter-tall yellow rubber ducks that Florentijin Hofman brought over to Hong Kong this time around.  

 

That is, until I saw photos and videos of one of those giant rubber ducks having deflated in Victoria Harbour earlier today!  Call it schadenfreude.  Or, rather, it was because I saw that it was a super high visibility day which would be conducive to photo taking!  In any case, despite today's high heat (which has been blamed for causing the duck deflation!), I got a massive yearning to go get photos of the yellow rubber ducks this afternoon... and did exactly that! 

 

By the way, one reason why I hadn't been planning on going to "visit" the rubber ducks this time around was because I found it rather strange that the waterfront at Admiralty, right in front of the government offices, had been where they would be "docked".  And I must say that it felt surreal at times to revisit the area one day and four years after marching there with some 1 million other people who were protesting a proposed extradition bill; this not least since there was quite the crowd there, many of them dressed in black and yellow (the two colours that tend to be most associated with pro-democracy protestors in Hong Kong) -- even if it's just the case that many Hong Kongers' favourite clothing color -- even in summer! -- is black, and many of those wearing yellow today were doing so in honor of the rubber ducks! 

 

Not protest marchers but folks -- who just happen to have umbrellas

and such -- on their way to see the (remaining) rubber duck!

 

"What happened to my (yellow) friend? Did (s)he stray too close to 

the red line?" (Sorry, but that joke was just waiting to be made!)

 

Deflated rubber duck, still inflated giant rubber duck, and fans!

 

Some people brought their own rubber ducks to take photos of

with the remaining giant rubber duck!

 

Okay, I admit it: the giant yellow rubber duck's pretty photogenic! :)

 

But, okay, I also couldn't resist taking photos of

the deflated rubber duck! ;b

 

Especially if you've been in this area during the Umbrella Movement

and at certain points in 2019, this sight is just so surreal

 

Not the yellowing I expected to see in this part of Hong Kong!  

(That's the Legislative Council complex, in the background!)

Book censorship in Hong Kong's public libraries, with the Tiananmen Square Massacre being among those subjects that is increasingly hard to read about in them

  

A book no longer available in Hong Kong public libraries

(but copies of which do exist in private hands in Hong Kong)

 

The past few days have been full of news of a number of books no longer being found in Hong Kong public libraries.  This is in addition to works by satirical cartoonist Zunzi having disappeared from them in the wake of the news of Ming Pao having suspended (and, in all likelihood, ended the four decade run of his cartoon strip last week; with a search by the Hong Kong Free Press, "including for Zunzi’s real name, Wong Kei-kwan, [having] yielded no results on the public library’s official website on Friday". (More than by the way, here's a link to his final comic, entitled "Rain and shine together" and featuring a yellow umbrella, which came out on Saturday, May 12th.) 

In the wake of this development, people have been doing searches in Hong Kong's public libraries and found that works by other notable folks -- including Hong Kong sociologist Ngok Ma and Stanford University political sociologist Larry Diamond -- have also gone missing; even those, like Chinese author Xu Zhiyuan, whose books are not banned in Mainland China!  In the words of a now exiled Hong Konger, Galileo Cheng: "A censorship system is being revived and we are drifting back to the old days" (with the old days in question being pre-turn of the 20th century British colonial Hong Kong). 

These discoveries prompted another now exiled Hong Konger, lawyer-political commentator Kevin Yam, to Tweet the following: "Today it’s banning books deemed politically unacceptable, tomorrow it will be banning of books containing politically sensitive economic, business and financial knowledge. Free information flows is a lynchpin of business and finance, which Hong Kong is en route to destroying."  That was on three days ago, May 13th, and in the days that have followed, still more books have been found to have gone missing from Hong Kong's public libraries. 

 

Yesterday, Ming Pao political reporter Alvin Lum Tweeted that "Hong Kong's public libraries have shelved memoir and writings of late democrat Szeto Wah as part of [a] review under [the] National Security Law" and also books by lawyer Margaret Ng.  Re the former: as Hong Kong journalist Ryan Ho Kilpatrick (now exiled in Taiwan) observed: "Szeto Wah used to be considered the archetype of the loyal opposition, every inch a patriot as much as a democrat. Even Beijing recognised this, and appointed him to the Basic Law drafting committee in 1985. The fact [that[ his work is now being censored shows how far HK has fallen."

 

Re the latter: If Margaret Ng wasn't already among the most respected Hong Kongers alive before she made a great speech in court in April 2021, she has become so after that.  More than incidentally, I had included a link to that speech in my blog post about her.  Sadly, Citizen News is one of the Hong Kong media sites that has felt obliged to close down in recent years; so here's providing a link to her speech at was shared on another, this time out-of-Hong Kong website.

 

And today's been dominated by reports of books about the Tiananmen Square Massacre (such as Rowena He's Tiananmen Exiles, six copies of which were available back on April 23rd, and Louisa Lim's The People's Republic of Amnesia: Tiananmen Revisited) no longer being in the Hong Kong public library system.  Channel News Asia reporter Wei Du was moved to Tweet that: "In 2017, when June 4 was removed from HK textbooks, I asked Carrie Lam how was anyone supposed to learn about that history. She told me to go to the library. Plenty of books there, she said. Yet here we are."

 

But, as Hong Kong Free Press' chief editor Tom Grundy noted: This removal of books about the Tiananmen Square Massacre "has been going on for a couple of years. In 2021,[the Hong Kong Free Press] found that Hong Kong’s libraries had 392 fewer copies of books about the Tiananmen crackdown than they did in 2009."  And this is the thing: it's been a drip, drip process for some years now; one which too many people failed to take notice or seriously enough despite this and other examples of  "Mainlandization" having been talked and shouted about by pro-democracy activists and protestors for years before 2020, 2019 and even in 2014!  

 

As Bloomberg's Matthew Brooker more generally noted: "It should be remembered that the 2019 protests were in part an accumulated reaction to a slow squeeze on freedoms that had been going on for years. Now the govt presents 2019 as the reason for these changes, but the program has always been the program".  And should it not be clear: "The program being to erase Hong Kong’s autonomy and freedoms".

 

Returning to today: Chief Executive John Lee responded to the current hoo-ha by stating that "Titles removed from the shelves of Hong Kong public libraries can still be bought from bookstores".  Also in the same Hong Kong Free Press piece covering this: "Ming Pao reported that since 2020, around 40 per cent of books and recordings about political topics or figures had been removed from public libraries.  Of 468 political books and recordings identified by Ming Pao, at least 195 had been removed – 96 of them in the past year, the newspaper reported." (And yes, this is the same Ming Pao that has suspended Zunzi's cartoon strip!)

Among the reactions to John Lee's remarks is this by Renaud Haccart over on Twitter: "This is disingenuous: • this is censorship - making undesirable titles harder to get access to for the public (the role of public libraries!) • lots of stores are owned by the PLA and will screen for such books • independent booksellers have been under huge legal pressure".  

 

Re the last: miraculously, independent bookstores -- a few of which are "yellow" too -- do still exist in Hong Kong; and I've actually seen copies of Louisa Lim's The People's Republic of Amnesia in one of those that still are in operation.  But the other Hong Kong bookstore where I saw copies of that book for sale is no more; with the owner of Bleak House Book having been open about the state of politics in Hong Kong having been behind his decision to return with his family to the USA back in 2021. 

 

Something else worth noting: amidst it all, it's never been outright proclaimed that mourning, never mind discussing, the Tiananmen Square Massacre is illegal.  Just yesterday, "Secretary for Security Chris Tang evaded questions from a reporter on Monday over whether members of public mourning victims of the crackdown would be committing subversion or sedition, ahead of the June 4 anniversary of the incident.  

 

So... tell me: why have all those books about June 4th disappeared from Hong Kong's public libraries with a number of others that it's really quite difficult to look upon as national security threats?  And this especially when none other than the Hong Kong Chief Executive maintains that they're (still) okay to sell and buy in bookstores?!