Wednesday, March 27, 2024

Article 23 has come into effect, and already been wielded

  
The kind of bookstore I wish could flourish in Hong Kong
 
Article 23 came into force last Saturday (March 23rd, 2024)Even before it came into effect, yet another wave of fear had swept Hong Kong -- and with it, announcement of store closures and such.  Although pro-democracy/free speech Mount Zero bookstore announced its upcoming closure (at the end of March; i.e., this Sunday) some weeks back, it clearly is a victim of the double whammy that's Article 23 and the National Security Law China imposed on Hong Kong on June 30th, 2020.
 
Over the weekend, I visited another of Hong Kong's remaining independent bookstores.  Even while some books that clearly showed its pro-democracy/free speech credentials remained on display, a staffer told me that they were other books that they had removed some others from their shelves while they waited to see where the new "red lines" were being drawn.  Put another way: they were anticipating that the "red lines" would be further tightened and there be less space for free speech and such in the city; and also waiting, like other Hong Kongers, to see Article 23 being wielded against people.

I must admit that a part for me was imagining horrors like mass arrests taking place at the stroke of midnight or pre-dawn on Saturday -- and was already counting my blessings later that day and Sunday that nothing directly Article 23 related had happened over the first 48 hours or so.  On Monday evening, however, I heard rumblings that something untoward had happened involving a jailed activist-protestor; and confirmation came along yesterday that Ma Chun-man had been denied the early release from prison that his family and friends who went to wait for him to come out of the Tong Fuk Correctional Institution on Monday thought he would be given.
 
 
All this was before Article 23 came into effect, however.  And "While the city's law stipulates eligible prisoners can be released before their term ends, the new security law allows the government to deny such rights."  Which is what happened; making Ma the first known case of an individual denied freedom and penalised under Article 23.

Some further details from the Nikkei Asia article reporting this: "Ma Chun-man, a former delivery man who was found guilty of inciting secession on at least 20 occasions in public and on social media between August and November 2020. Ma was accused of chanting slogans advocating independence from China." Read that again: he CHANTED SLOGANS. (In other words, we are talking about speech crimes.)
 
Quoting again from the Nikkei Asia piece: "The new security law is more comprehensive than one that was imposed by Beijing in June 2020 to punish secession, subversion, terrorist activities and collusion with a foreign country or external forces that endangered national security. The new law includes treason, insurrection, theft of state secrets, sabotage against public infrastructure, including computer systems, and external interference in domestic affairs."  
 
At the same time, it's worth noting that Hong Kong's Basic Law also includes the following Articles:
Article 27:  Hong Kong residents shall have freedom of speech, of the press and of publication; freedom of association, of assembly, of procession and of demonstration; and the right and freedom to form and join trade unions, and to strike.
 
Article 28:  The freedom of the person of Hong Kong residents shall be inviolable.

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

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

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

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

Friday, March 22, 2024

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.

 
 
 
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!

Friday, March 8, 2024

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!
 
 
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! 

Saturday, March 2, 2024

Farewell to David Bordwell, a beloved fan and respected champion of Hong Kong cinema

  
David Bordwell sharing a stage with Karena Lam, 
Christopher Lambert and Bong Joon Ho at the 
 
Today was one of those days when soon after I had dragged myself out of bed, on account of it being a way colder March day than I'm used to in Hong Kong, I wanted to head back to bed for the rest of the day.  For a change, it wasn't bad political news that made me feel this way.  Rather, it was learning (via a Facebook post from a mutual friend) that a good friend had passed away.

David Bordwell was one of those people I first knew about -- and writings (including Planet Hong Kong: Popular Cinema and the Art of Entertainment (of which there's a second, revised edition and Chinese language translation) I read -- before I met him.  An eminent film scholar whose Film Art: An Introduction (co-authored with his wife, now widow, Kristin Thompson) was the textbook for many introductory film studies courses, he taught for decades at the University of Wisconsin at Madison and, by many accounts, was a fantastic teacher as well as professor.

I never formally knew this side of David Bordwell as I never ever took a film studies class (nor was I enrolled at the University of Wisconsin at Madison).  Still I do think he taught me a lot over the years by way of one-on-one conversations, email discussions and such.  And not just about film but, also, how to be a good human being.

Among the things that struck me pretty much from the start of my getting to know him -- around two and a half decades ago now -- was how he would generously share information and insights, never forget to thank people who answered queries he had and to openly credit people he felt had helped in even the most minor ways.  Also, unlike too many professors and others who occupied respected positions, he never treated people who weren't his peers like, well, they were not his peers.
 
In addition to being an admirably "hail fellow well met" kind of guy, I really appreciated that David Bordwell was film fan as well as a film scholar.  Again, unlike too many other folks I've encountered (who seem to think that to be serious about cinema requires one to be critical -- or, at the very least, emotionally detached), he was unafraid to show his enthuasiasm and enjoyment of a movie, and also would openly expression passion for a particular actor, actress or filmmaker -- and even openly champion their work.

Fun fact: I first "met" David Bordwell via a film discussion board used mainly by movie geeks.  Although we were both based in the US at the time, we only met "in the flesh" in Hong Kong a few years later -- after a Hong Kong International Film Festival screening; one of many we would end up finding ourselves both at.
 
Some of my favorite memories of David involve watching movies at the Hong Kong International Film Festival with him and then waxing lyrical to each other about those we had enjoyed viewing.  Among the most memorable of our shared viewings was of Tsui Hark's Once Upon a Time in China (Hong Kong, 1991) with two other friends.  All of us had seen this martial arts epic before and loved it.  But it truly was a rare treat for all of us to view it on a big screen with friends who were fellow fans.     
 
Another memorable viewing with David was of a lesser known Hong Kong movie: New York, Chinatown (Hong Kong, 1982), which we both viewed for the first time, sat side by side, in the front row of the cinema at the Hong Kong Film Archive back in 2014.  That's 10 years ago now but I still can recall his glee when watching this movie which can't be called a classic by any means but still has its moments.  
 
Afterwards, we headed out of the Film Archive and parted ways -- he to take the MTR and I to take the bus.  That was actually the last time I saw him because ill health made it so that he was advised by his doctor to not make the trip over to Hong Kong from Wisconsin in subsequent years.  I wish it weren't the case.  And I have to say that every year since that the Hong Kong International Film Festival has come along, I had hoped that I'd see David again.  Sadly, it's not to be.  
 
He was, and will be, missed.  But, well, David, thanks for the great memories. And, actually, thank you for everything -- including your championing of Hong Kong cinema -- and Hong Kong in general* -- over the years but, also, for being a wonderful human being and treasured friend.        
 
*From a 2020 post on his (and Kristin Thompson's) Observations on Film Art blog: "Since the last edition [of Planet Hong Kong], I have not followed Hong Kong cinema as intensively as I would have liked. Other projects have diverted me. But I have never lost my admiration for this cinema, this culture, and this citizenry. Watching Hong Kong films and visiting the territory have added a new dimension to my life."
 
RIP, David Bordwell (1947-2024).  And Kristin, should you ever read this blog post: my sincere condolences once more.  

Friday, February 23, 2024

"Table for Six 2" was the first film I opted to view in the new year of the dragon!

  
The first Hong Kong movie I viewed in the 
new year of the dragon! :)
 
Table for Six 2 (Hong Kong-Mainland China, 2024)
- Sunny Chan, director and scriptwriter
- Starring: Stephy Tang, Louis Cheung Kai Chung, Ivana Wong, Lin Min Chen, Peter Chan Charm-man 
 
One of my favourite Lunar New Year traditions here in Hong Kong involves going to the cinema to view Chinese New Year movies with a receptive audience in the mood for laughs aplenty.  With three such cinematic offerings to choose from this new year of the dragon, I opted to first view the follow-up film to Table for Six, the smash hit family dramedy that originally had been scheduled to be a Chinese New Year 2022 offering, only to get released months later thanks to Covid and the Hong Kong government's then super strict pandemic restrictions including the shutting down of cinemas for a not inconsiderable period of time.    

Going into the screening of Table for Six 2, I knew that the first film's lead actor, Dayo Wong, would not be in this new movie which loosely revolves around three weddings and members of the family that had been at the heart of the first Table for Six now being in the wedding planning business.  But with the rest of the original ensemble being around for it and advance publicity for the festive offering showing that it would boast lots of cameo appearances by the likes of Jennifer Yu, Helena Law Lan, Woo Fung and Tse Kwan-ho, I figured that it would not lack for acting prowess and star power.  And so it proved.  
 
Disappointingly though, despite Table For Six 2 having the same director-scriptwriter (Sunny Chan) as that which is currently third on the all time Hong Kong box office chart for local releases (having ended up amassing a whopping HK$77.3 million!), there was a notable drop off in overall quality; one that comes from the main characters feeling more one-note and/or their eccentric tics often being overly exaggerated this time around, despite the better efforts of those who play them.  For example, Ivana Wong's Josephine sadly spends too much of her time onscreen this time around fuming (even more so than cooking); so much so that it's harder this time around to see why Lung (played by Peter Chan Charn-man) would care for and love her enough to get married to her.  
 
Then there's Meow (essayed by Taiwanese actress Lim Min Chen), who appears for much of the movie to have just two modes: cutesy; and alcoholic.  Though, as it turns out, she does end up having a great dramatic scene that may well be the heart of this movie which, like with the first Table for Six, is best when the mood gets more serious and reflective. Too bad then that much of it spent trying to be manically laugh-a-minute (or, it can feel more like, every 10 seconds or so; with one-liners, punch lines and visual gags being thrown out at a crazily fast pace, seemingly in the hope that at least some will stick)!
 
With Dayo Wong's eldest brother Steve being out of the picture (bar for verbal references aplenty to the character, including his absence being explained away by his having decided to go to Africa), it looks to have fallen on middle brother Bernard (portrayed by Louis Cheung) to anchor the family, and film.  And he does have his moments; with standouts including a musical comedy sequence involving the Leslie Cheung (no relation)'s hit song Monica.  He also gets to interact with his late mother (essayed again by Fish Liew) in scenes that will bring to mind those involving her and Steve in the first film.     
 
Still, it might be fifth returning star, Stephy Tang (playing Monica), who is given the most opportunities to steal the scene and shine in the film. Nonetheless, with my having viewed her, Louis Cheung, Ivana Wong and Peter Chan Charm-man in other, more serious and/or substantive roles in other movies, I really do reckon that she and all her co-stars deserve better material to work with than what they were given in Table for Six 2.  
 
All in all, I would have appreciated a less scattershot approach to trying to get laughs.  I also wish the movie's over-the-top tone, flimsy plot involving weddings being viewed primarily as a commercial enterprise rather than a serious affair and often nonsensical subplots, didn't threaten to make my head spin from too many lies being told and piling on top of one another.  And truly, it's quite the miracle that Table for Six 2 managed to ultimately come together and wrap as well as it eventually did.  
 
Still, less might have been more, actually.  At the very least, a more minimalist approach would have reduced the movie's 133 minute long screen time.  Nonetheless, I did get some enjoyment out of viewing Table for Six 2 -- even while being fully aware that it's no cinematic classic -- and on the first day of the new year of the dragon too.  Also, it even had a couple of scenes that put lumps in my throat and had my eyes watering in a way that told me that, amidst much silliness, I had been emotionally impacted after all. 
 
My rating for the film: 6.5 

Monday, February 12, 2024

Enter the new dragon year!

"Dragon" installation in a Hong Kong public park! :D
 
Kong hei fatt choi!  It's now the third day of the new Year of the Dragon and I feel a need to mark the occasion with a blog post as well as assure people who wondered if I was alive that I indeed still am so.  Also, for the time being, I don't have plans to entirely stop blogging... but I might take a break for a bit.  
 
Somehow, I've just not felt the urge to blog as much as previously; probably because there's so little sense here that there actually are people reading what I've written -- unlike, say, over on Twitter (and no, I refuse to call it X still!).   For now, let's play it by ear and see how it goes, shall we? 

At the very least, I do still want to write reviews of Hong Kong films I see here.  And it would be nice to finish chronicling my most recent (October 2023!) Japan trip here, I think; since I know of at least one person who seems interested in checking out those posts!

Sunday, February 4, 2024

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
 
 
 
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

 
 
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!