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!

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

The Moon Thieves is a fun watch, and maybe more! (Film review)

  

Advertising for the second Lunar New Year comedy 

I viewed in 2024 :)

 

The Moon Thieves (Hong Kong, 2024)

- Steve Yuen, director and co-scriptwriter (with Chan Kin-hung)

- Starring: Edan Lui, Anson Lo, Louis Cheung, Michael Ning, Keung To

 

This year's batch of Hong Kong Lunar New Year movies have been star-driven, with Rob n Roll boasting the the single biggest star name in Aaron Kwok. But it's Louis Cheung who will be the festive season's acting box office champ thanks to his appearing in not one but two 2024 Lunar New Year offerings; at least one of which is still in Hong Kong cinemas over Easter weekend!  And while he's part of an ensemble cast in both Table for Six 2 and The Moon Thieves, his parts are significant in both.  

 

In this Steve Yuen movie, Cheung, together with MIRROR members Edan Lui and Anson Lo, and award-winning actor Michael Ning, make up the titular "moon thieves": a heist crew recruited by "Uncle" (played by another MIRROR member in Keung To) -- a powerful, even while surprisingly young, underworld watch dealer who took over the nickname and business from his late father -- to go to Tokyo and steal three rare (and thus super valuable) watches housed in a Japanese company's safe. 

Edan Lui has arguably the most eye-catching role as Vincent, an antiques watch counterfeiter with quite the watch knowledge (and obsession). As explosives expert Mario, Michael Ning definitely stole some scenes though, while Anson Lo as Yoh, the young lock-picking artist, looked to be able to have fun with his role too.  But it's left to Louis Cheung's Chief, the leader of the crew, to hold things together -- and that he does ably. 

 

Watching Table for Six 2 and The Moon Thieves just a few weeks apart increased my Louis Cheung appreciation due to his having had very different roles in the two pretty different movies; yet managing to add gravitas to both and infuse emotional depth to generally light (in terms of mood and also dramatic heft) films as a whole as well as his characters in them.  Also, I appreciate how he looks able to hold his own and appeal in both a movie where the big names were a generation older than him (Table for Six 2) and then again in another where the star attractions were decades younger than him (The Moon Thieves). 

Incidentally, I'm sure that many people went to see The Moon Thieves primarily -- or even solely -- because of there being MIRROR members in it! While I wouldn't describe myself as a fan of the music group or even any of its individual members, I will say that I've never been put off by the presence of any of them in a movie (unlike, say, with...Aaron Kwok.  Yes, there's a reason why Rob n Roll was not a movie I made a beeline to go watch!)  And, in fact, I think that all of that group's trio acquitted themselves well in this fun film.

 

When viewing this festive offering, I found myself not thinking at all about Hong Kong's political situation or pro-democracy protest movement.  Those who don't live in Hong Kong probably will think "Of course, it's just an entertaining -- even mere "throwaway" -- heist movie, after all"!  But upon further reflection, the way that you have people who don't have much in common come together to form a team and end up bonding while working towards a common purpose is something that, well, does remind me of how things were in 2019-2020.  Yes, I may be overthinking it.  But, ultimately, I think this also is why I do think that The Moon Thieves is a very Hong Kong movie designed to appeal to Hong Kongers after all!

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!

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!

Of "seditious" t-shirts and flags, and relatives "under suspicion" in Hong Kong

  

Not everyone who has a boarding pass for a plane at Hong Kong

International Airport is allowed to board the plane... :S

 

The past 48 hours or so has seen, first, the parents and two sisters of Simon Cheng taken in for questioning by the Hong Kong police and then also the mother of Frances Hui.  Simon Cheng and Frances Hui are exiled Hong Kongers accused of breaking the national security law and consequently have had HK$1 million bounties placed on each of their heads by the Hong Kong government.  

 

Their relatives appear to have been harassed by the police because they happen to be the close relatives of these two activists: one of whom first made the news after he, who was then a British Consul worker, was detained and tortured by the Mainland police in 2019, and has since been granted asylum by the United Kingdom; the other of whom was the first Hong Konger granted asylum by the United States of America.  It doesn't sound like any of Simon Cheng or Frances Hui's relatives have been detained or arrested (though/thus far).  

 

Something that cannot be said of Chu Kai-poon, a 26-year-old Hong Konger who was arrested last November after a Hong Kong International Airport security guard spotted Chu wearing a long-sleeve top with the phrase “Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times,” on it and now has been jailed for three months for that "crime".  Yes, really. I wish I was kidding but I am not.

 

According to a government statement at the time, Chu was arrested near a boarding gate by police who had “sped to the scene.” Note: Chu was on his way OUT of Hong Kong at the time of his arrest. Did the police (seriously) think that he was going to do something like hijack or bomb the plane while wearing his "seditious" t-shirt (i.e., the one with the words "Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution of Our Times" -- which were often heard being chanted during pro-democracy protests in 2019 and 2020 -- on it)?

 

After he was apprehended, the police "also found three flags that bore the same slogan – as well as another t-shirt that had “Hong Kong independence” printed on it – in his possession." Note: he wasn't waving the flags around in the airport.  Instead, it sounds like they just were in his baggage.

 

As reported by the Hong Kong Free Press: "Designated national security judge Chief Magistrate Victor So said on Wednesday that the offence was less serious than in other sedition cases as it involved a small number of items and a relatively short period of time." More on the "relatively short period of time" bit: "The judge said that between leaving his residence and arriving at the airport, Chu only publicly demonstrated the protest slogan for five hours and 23 minutes."  

 

And yet he got a three month prison sentence for these "crimes"!  Something which I find pretty crazy; and so too does at least Samuel Bickett -- who, lest we forget -- is a trained lawyer (unlike me)!  Also, as he damningly pointed out in his Tweet about this sentencing and verdict: "Hong Kong law guarantees free speech in the Basic Law, bill of rights, and even the National Security Law. Yet every single judge who has heard these speech crime cases has ignored these guarantees."

 

For those of you outside of Hong Kong who've been thinking of visiting it: I know some of you may think that "Hong Kong politics are of no concern to me, I'm just here to eat/have fun/enjoy myself". And look, even I, who am very much concerned with Hong Kong's political situation, still eat and can have fun and enjoy myself here (and even take flights out of Hong Kong to spend time eating, having fun and enjoying myself out of it).  

 

But I also am very much aware of what is happening here, concerned with it and, well, yes, I have to admit that I sometimes wonder how much oppression/ludicrousness/curtailing of freedoms (including freedom of expression) around and also on me I'm willing to accept before I, too, will feel like I need to leave Hong Kong.:(

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.

Thinking about Hong Kong's political prisoners, and Glory to Hong Kong, on Midwinter Solstice

Sesame-filled glutinous rice balls in ginger sauce -- a dish

I ate last night but can imagine many people opting to eat tonight :)
 

It's the Winter (or Midwinter) Solstice today -- and many people are celebrating it with family and loved ones; with some shops closing earlier than usual to allow staff to do so and some restaurants not offering dinner service to enable their staff to have the evening off.  Which is why, I guess, my thoughts turn to the Hong Kongers in exile who are not able to do the same -- and, also, Hong Kong's political prisoners, of which there really are far too many for comfort; and with their numbers increased this week too.

 

Jimmy Lai was the Hong Kong political prisoner who dominated the news today -- thanks to the judges presiding over his national security law trial having upheld a sedition charge against him today following the defence’s argument that the charge was laid after a six-month statute of limitations had expired.  Sad but true: this was not exactly unexpected.  

 

As Samuel Bickett, who has had first hand experience of the brand of "justice" dished out by Esther Toh, one of the three judges presiding over Jimmy Lai's national security law trial, Tweeted: "In case anyone still had doubts—this is a pretty clear indicator of how the next few months of Jimmy Lai’s trial are going to go for the defense."  That is, there's not much that's going to be allowed to go the defence's way.

 

Jimmy Lai, for those who didn't realize, has now spent over 1,000 days behind bars -- the majority (if not all) in solitary confinement.   Another reminder: "Prolonged solitary confinement is a form of torture (according to the UN Mandela Rules)".  And yet that is what the former media mogul has been subjected to by the authorities here in Hong Kong.

 

Another Hong Kong political prisoner currently in solitary confinement is lawyer-activist Chow Hang-tung.  Incredibly, the apparent reason for her latest spell in isolation is that she had received "too many letters".  Yesterday also saw her latest application for bail ahead of her national security law trial being denied, with the judge saying that it's because it can't be guaranteed that she won't be a national security threat.  

 

A reminder: this is the Chow Hang-tung who's a Nobel Peace Prize nominee and recently awarded a human rights prize by the foreign ministries of France and Germany that "honours“civil society’s commitment to human dignity and the inalienable human rights of all people”". What kind of government would consider her a national security threat? I leave you to be the judge on that.

Yesterday also saw the addition of (at least) one more name to the shocking lengthy list of Hong Kong political prisoners. Marilyn Tang, the sister-in-law of jailed activist Lee Cheuk-yan, was given six months in prison for ‘perverting the course of justice’ after she pleaded guilty to removing electronic devices from her sister, Elizabeth Tang’s home following Lee Cheuk-yan's wife's arrest this past March under the Beijing-imposed national security law.

 

Here's the thing: Marilyn Tang did admit to having visited Elizabeth Tang's apartment and removed her sister’s phone and laptop, which was potential evidence. But the fact of the matter is that the police later found no evidence she had tampered with the devices, nor found anything incriminating on them. Yet she's been sent to prison -- for SIX MONTHS -- nonetheless!

Meanwhile, it feels like Hong Kong dodged a bullet earlier this week -- or, rather, to mix metaphors, kicked it a couple of months down the road to February 24th. I'm referring here to the Hong Kong government's appeal against a lower court's rejection of its proposed Glory to Hong Kong injunction that seeks to ban the dissemination of the 2019 protest anthem online, including via Youtube videos.

 

On Tuesday, the Appeals Court judges hearing the appeal decided they would need more time to hear the government’s arguments rather than make a judgement about it. From what was heard though, here's the government's case for the injunction in a nutshell appears to be that the song "amounted to a “weapon” for people to threaten the authorities".

 

Think about this for a minute (or more): this is a SONG we are talking about. But, then, the Hong Kong government has previous with regards to thinking that things most rational, sane people don't consider to be weapons to be so. Remember their saying this about umbrellas (starting from as far back as 2014)?  Also, remember the case of the female protestor arrested and convicted of assaulting a police officer with HER BREASTS?!

 

Back to the Glory to Hong Kong case: here's a reminder that the injunction application was rejected by High Court judge Anthony Chan in July   On Tuesday, "Acting as “a friend of the court” – someone who is not involved in a legal case, but who assists a court by offering information or insight – Senior Counsel Abraham Chan described the injunction pursued by the government as “unprecedented" and pointed out that "the song itself was not illegal, and there was no evidence that an injunction would help internet service providers remove the song if the publisher’s intent was unclear".  

 

"Chan also asked the court to consider provisions in the security law which stipulate that human rights and freedom must be protected."  One can but hope against hope that it does. And consequently reject the government's appeal come February 24th. Otherwise, I fear that yet another level of Pandora's Box will be opened; one that will lead to Youtube (and its parent company, Google) deciding to stop its services in Hong Kong -- something which it did in Mainland China years ago -- and, in the process, make it even more difficult for people here to stay connected to friends and family members living elsewhere in the world.