More shock arrests and, even more shocking, bald-faced attempts to twist truths and rewrite history

They want to twist the truth but we remember 

too well the events of July 21st, 2019

What the majority of Hong Kongers have been 

feeling for over a year now

I woke up this morning to news of Hong Kong Democratic Party legislative councillors Lam Cheuk-ting and Ted Hui Chi-fung having been arrested on charges related to the extradition bill protests last year.  According to the authorities, both men are "suspected of offences relating to a protest outside Tuen Mun police station on July 6 last year".  

Lam Cheuk-ting also was  accused of the police of "rioting" in relation to the mob attacks at Yuen Long MTR station on July 21st, 2019 -- which is incredibly ludicrous since, on that stated evening, he had live streamed the attacks on Facebook with his phone, and had ended up being among the victims of the attack  -- with a mouth wound that required 18 stitches among the injuries sustained that resulted in his being hospitalized for a time!  (Also, this is the same Lam Cheuk-ting who previously received a letter from the police last year thanking him for reporting the Yuen Long attack!)

As the day went by, further arrests were made.  As of the time of writing, the total number appears to be 16 -- with 13 of the arrests reportedly linked to the Yuen Long attacks.  As their identities came to light, there was further uproar since the police looked to have been targeting victims of the mob violence rather than the perpetuators!

The more news came to light during the day about the arrests and the police justifications for them, the more it looks to be the case that the authorities are trying to rewriting history, changing black to white and vice versa.  Among other things, they are now attempting to characterize the attacks as a clash between "evenly matched" rival groups -- something that smacks of major insanity (or gaslighting of the highest order) given the sheer amount of evidence to the contrary.

As many Hong Kongers have said to one another more than once over the past year, one big difference between Hong Kong and Xinjiang is that in Hong Kong, we've had tons of press coverage (from international as well as local outlets) and so much livestreaming of the protests and associated clashes that have taken place.  The former helps keep the world informed; the latter makes it so that many of us were effectively witness to such as the events at Yuen Long MTR station on July 21st in real time.  

So "imagine what they would say if the press hadn't been there...".  On a related note: how timely for the Society of Publishers in Asia (SOPA) to announce its 2020 awards for journalism today and give the Award for Excellence in Video Reporting Global (English Language) Media to the New York Times for its "Where Were Hong Kong’s Police?" piece, an Honorable Mention for Excellence in Reporting Breaking News (Chinese Language Media) to Initium News for its "Investigation of the indiscriminate attack of July 21 Yuen Long Nightmare" as well as an Honorable Mention for Excellence in Information Graphics (Chinese Language Media) to Citizen News' "The ‘721’ Yuen Long Attack"!

She may not have won any SOPA awards but many of us remember and appreciate the courage under fire that Gwyneth Ho showed that nightmarish evening.  Then a Stand News reporter, she -- who now has become a social activist and politician, and was the choice of many to stand for election as a legislative councillor this September (but was disqualified from doing so before the announcement of the election's postponement) -- live streamed the attacks even after she was attacked.  

This evening, she showed her bravery and determination once more by turning up in Yuen Long to recount her experience that night and, in so doing, rebutt the alternative accounts that the police are trying to perpetuate.  It really says so much about them that the police's response tonight was to try to drown out her voice with loudspeakers.  But she nonetheless managed to make herself heard.  

Earlier today, RTHK journalist Damon Pang was moved to Tweet the following: "I’m confused.  They say it’s 2047 but it’s 2020,  But others say it’s 1984"; this in response to a Tweet by a colleague showing an incident which took place on July 21st which clearly did not happen the way that the police were stating today that it did.  Also today, Quartz reporter Mary Hui was moved to suggest that "Everyday is Opposite Day for the HK govt" and remind people, amidst the haze created by today's crazy events, that yesterday had seen Carrie Lam making a number of questionable statements too.

A recap: First, she had criticized medical experts who were not enamored of her government's scheme to conduct mass testing for the Wuhan coronavirus as being "politically motivated".  (It's worth remembering that these doctors include highly respected figures such as the University of Hong Kong's Ho Pak-leung and Benjamin Cowling.)   Then she had gone on to criticize critics of the Department of Justice as disrespecting the judiciary.    

Something that's worth noting: much of the recent criticism of the Department of Justice -- specifically, its chief, Teresa Cheung -- came after she stepped in to block two private prosecutions that Ted Hui had tried to bring to court (involving, in one case, an unarmed protestor shot at close range by a police officer and, in another, a taxi driver who had rammed his taxi into a crowd of protestors).  And in the off chance that it's been missed: yup, that's the same Ted Hui who was arrested today!

Control in the name of national security and public health in contemporary Hong Kong

Illegal to chant in Hong Kong since July 2nd

 

Illegal to ask for now too?

Back on July 1st, less than 24 hours after China's security legislation for Hong Kong came into effect late on June 30th, the first arrests under the new law took place -- with probably the youngest having been a 15-year-old girl apprehended by the police for the terrible crime of waving a "Hong Kong independence flag".  That same day, three other females were arrested that day for being in possession of stickers and a banner advocating independence for Hong Kong, and a motorcyclist who collided with some police officers -- accidentally, it looks like when one views an extended video of the incident. 

The 23-year-old motorcyclist, Tong Ying-kit, ended up being the very first person charged under the security law.  Accused of terrorism (presumably because he injured three police officers) and a secessionism (because he was flying a banner with the "Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times" slogan (in Chinese and English) while riding his motorbike), he has been in custody since (despite the efforts of his legal team to get him out on bail). 
   
On July 2nd, that famous rallying cry -- whose English variants include "Restore Hong Kong...", 'Revive Hong Kong..." and "Reclaim Hong Kong..." based on the fact that the first two Chinese characters of this slogan (光 gwong and 復 fuk ) can be variously translated as "liberate", "restore", "revive" and "reclaim" along with, when viewed separately, "light" and "returns" -- was also deemed illegal under the newly enacted law, with the powers that be claiming that it's pro-independence, secessionist and subversive.  This declaration caused a greater frisson than those which outlawed calls for Hong Kong independence because a far greater number of Hong Kongers are comfortable calling for Hong Kong's restoration, revival, etcetera than for outright political independence. 

Before anything else: those two calls really are not synonymous to many participants in the extradition bill protests.  Neither, despite what the powers that be seem to want many people to believe, is it the case independence for Hong Kong among the "five demands" that anti-extradition bill protestors have been making for more than a year now.  Instead, for the record, the five demands are as follows:-  

1) Withdraw the Extradition Bill (officially done but...);
2) Revoke the riot claims (originally, this was specifically for the events of June 12th which had seen the police be a greater menace to society than the people who turned up in great numbers at Admiralty that day);
3) Amnesty for arrested protestors;
4) An independent investigation of police conduct; and
5) Genuine Universal Suffrage.

Not all that radical and actually pretty reasonable, right?  Astonishingly, it now appears to be the case that saying "Five demands, not one less” will also get you in trouble with the law -- or, at least, the police officers entrusted with enforcing the law.  For a local politician actually got warned by police officers that he may have -- but note: not certainly -- violated this insanely broad and also vague security law -- or, as some would have it, insecurity law! -- last night after he exchanged "five demands, not one less" chants with a passerby when out distributing face masks to people in Kowloon Bay!   

Speaking of face masks: the prices for them have come down quite a bit now that there's no longer a medical mask shortage in Hong Kong (like was a case in late January).  And with both pro-Beijing and pro-democracy politicians and groups distributing free masks to the public -- and the government too -- there is a clear recognition that the wearing of masks really helps in our fight against the Wuhan coronavirus. 

A piece of good news for Hong Kong: The number of new daily Wuhan coronavirus cases fell to nine today -- the first time we've recorded single digit numbers in this category since July 3rd.  Even with this clear sign that the third wave has not only peaked but has been largely contained though, current social distancing restrictions don't look like they'll be relaxed any time soon.  In fact, it's been reported that health secretary Sophia Chan is threatening to not relax these measures unless people turn up in mass numbers to take the Wuhan coronavirus tests that many local medical experts have said are unnecessary, with at least one of them (Dr Ho Pak-leung) underlining this fact by stating that he, for one, is not planning to take the test!    

The way the Hong Kong government is going about trying to "encourage" people to take these tests can't help but invite suspicion.  And this all the more so when at the same time as they're readying to conduct tests for upwards of five million people, the same group of officials are stating that it's "not feasible" to test the 60,000 or so people living in elderly care homes across the city which have been the sites of Wuhan coronavirus clusters!  Put another way: this does not make sense and can't help but encourage people to suspect that the health measures are being used as covers to increase surveillance and control over the local population.     

Saying "No" to Wuhan coronavirus mass testing and a "health code" for Hong Kong

Check out the cockatoos in the above photo,

but notice the (traffic? surveillance?) camera too

And I don't think it's just my imagination that has me

thinking there are more surveillance cameras about

in Hong Kong now than even this time last year :S

At the end of my previous blog post, I mentioned that the High Court would be ruling on a national security law case in which a writ of habeus corpus had been filed by the defendant's legal team.  Sadly, I am obliged to report that challenge was dismissed -- on procedural grounds but still in a way that points to the judges having basically accepted the government line on the matter.  And while Tong Ying-kit's case continues and will have a bail hearing next week, I'm afraid that it's not looking good for him -- or for the state of justice in Hong Kong.

Over on the health front: things appear to be looking better for Hong Kong; with its daily new Wuhan coronavirus case numbers for this week pointing to the third wave having peaked back on July 30th, when we had a record 149 cases that day. For the record: the equivalent figures for the last six days have been 44, 36, 26, 18, 27 and 26 respectively. 

So why is the government still so intent on scheduling a mass testing scheme -- which will only commence on September 1st?  And this after trusted medical experts like Dr Ho Pak-leung have cast doubt on the effectiveness of the universal coronavirus tests, with the head of University of Hong Kong's Centre for Infection saying the government would be "wasting bullets" if the plan is not targeted at people with higher risk of infection.  

For good measure, Professor Benjamin Cowling, also of the University of Hong Kong, has called the government's outlined strategy as "a scatter-gun approach" and stated that "“I don’t think there would be a lot of public support for [this], I don’t think seven million people would agree to be tested”.   And, actually, I think that the authorities have realized that it might not be possible to get even four or five million people (the figures originally suggested by health secretary Sophia Chan a few weeks back) to voluntarily accede to taking these tests; hence that particularly government minister backpedalling yesterday on those earlier estimates.

But rather than abandon plans for this questionable scheme, the powers that be are threatening to abandon the carrot and employ the stick instead.  More specifically, there have been calls for Mainland China's "health code" to be implemented in Hong Kong too -- so that only people with documentation stating that they have tested negative for the coronavirus will be allowed to do such as take public transportation, enter shopping malls, and generally freely go about and around Hong Kong. 

Despite local medical experts also having come out against the implementation of a "health code" in Hong Kong, the authorities are not ruling it out.  And not that popular opinion matters to a government that was not popularly elected but I think it's still worth noting that in a recent Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute (PORI) poll showed, 76 percent of respondents opposed the implementation of a "Hong Kong health code system" (with the total percentage going up even higher to 96 percent among those who identified themselves as being pro-democracy camp supporters; and this scheme still being supported by only 29 percent of those who don't identify themselves as pro-democracy camp supporters!).  

So, why would the Hong Kong government consider this scheme?  I reckon most thinking folk already know this but, as a journalist and a doctor combine to spell out in a Hong Kong Free Press think piece: 

As Beijing tries to export [Mainland China's] Health Code scheme to Hong Kong, it is sending a Trojan horse disguised as health policy. Hong Kong is an open society with robust professional bodies and a developed medical system forged through its SARS experience.  It has no place for an ineffective and unethical app such as the one suggested under the Health Code scheme.  Our low mortality rate and flattening Covid-19 case number curve are proof. The only reason to export the scheme to Hong Kong is to crush professional ethics, break trust, and place a once free people under total state surveillance.

Also noted in the same piece is that: "The Health Code scheme is a new export product from mainland China – a technology not proposed by the medical profession, but stemming from the Chinese Social Credit system."  Consequently, as suggested in its very title: "Medical workers must resist a totalitarian move to crush professional ethics disguised as health policy."  To protect the political, psychological and physicial health of all Hong Kong and prevent it from going further along the slippery slope to becoming another Xinjiang.

Legal arenas are (also) protest arenas in Hong Kong these days

It looks calm after the storm (but) the spectre of the security 

law, bureau and associated remain to darken moods

(Spot the hotel turned security bureau building?) 

Is justice still guarded -- or is it more a case of the courts

being policed these days --in Hong Kong?

Despite being conferred T9 status for a few hours, Typhoon Higos turned out to be a bit of a damp squid -- especially compared to the mighty Mangkhut which blew through Hong Kong in September 2018 and thoroughly justified its T10 status.  Even though it was still a serious T8 when I woke up yesterday morning, it didn't seem noticeably windier or wetter than a non-typhoon rain storm -- and, unlike with Mangkhut, it didn't seem to leave that much debris or damage in its wake.  

So life returned to normal pretty quickly yesterday -- well, as normal as things can be during these pandemic and security law times.  On the Wuhan coronavirus front: touch wood but things are indeed looking up -- with the number of new daily cases continuing on a downslide; with Hong Kong reporting 26 yesterday and a six-week low of 18 new infections today.  So it's back to worrying and fixating most on threats to freedoms -- and for the record, recently released results of the latest Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute (PORI) poll shows that those surveyed reckon that the degrees of freedom, prosperity, compliance with the rule of law, stability and democracy (which collectively are described as the "five core social indicators") in Hong Kong are at the lowest level since June 1997.

The fact of the matter is that we really don't need to look all that far to find the reasons for many Hong Kongers' fears and dissatisfaction.  In addition to the much publicized threats to press freedom (that were made abundantly clear for the world to see last week),  we are also seeing a clamping down on freedom in the education sector that could well see a mass exodus of international school teachers as well as eminent university professors.  Throw in the sense that the legal system as Hong Kongers have long known it is also under threat and it's easy enough to understand how there has come to be a growing and pervasive fear felt by Hong Kongers (even while defiance and resilience undoubtedly remain) that makes it now a very different Hong Kong from even just a few months ago.     

With opposition having largely moved away from mass street protests to other means, the courts have become key arenas to contest a large number of protest- and rights-related cases and issues.  Sometimes, there have been victories; other times defeats; and at still other times, decisions that fail to completely satisfy either camp (and consequently get appealed and turn into cases that run and run and run). 

In addition there also are those times when attempted contests are stopped before they can even get into court -- like Legislative Councillor Ted Hui's crowdfunded private prosecution against a police officer who shot a student in the abdomen from close range with live ammunition in Sai Wan Ho last November 11th.  Earlier this week, Justice Secretary Teresa Cheng (whose net -53 percent unpopularity rivals Carrie Lam's net -54 percent!) intervened to have the case blocked and dropped.  And she's done the same thing with another legal proceeding that Ted Hui (who is in possession of legal credentials too, by the way) initiated: this one against a taxi driver accused of ramming protesters with his vehicle in Sham Shui Po last October. 

As historian Jeppe Mulich suggested in a Tweet, "Teresa Cheng is working hard to block every avenue for accountability left in Hong Kong."  For his part, Ted Hui reckons that "Teresa Cheng's action is overriding the rule of law with rule of man"; a statement that got me recalling lawyer Kevin Yam's fatalistic comments about the security law back on June 21st: "Don’t analyse the #HongKong National Security Law. There’s nothing to analyse. It’s just whatever they say it is. And if they cannot make it whatever they say it is when they want something, they will just change it in whatever way they like. End of story."   

To be sure, it can still look at times like the wheels of justice are still running in Hong Kong.   For example, it's been announced this evening that six more men have been on suspicion of rioting and conspiracy to wound in connection with the mob attack at Yuen Long MTR station on July 21st, 2019; bringing the total number of people arrested in relation to that horrific event up to 43.  Here's the thing though: more than a year later, only seven of those individuals have been charged -- and, if I'm not mistaken, no one has been found guilty and sent to jail for their crimes.  Actually, I'm not sure whether any Yuen Long attacker has spent any (significant amount of) time in custody.

On the other hand, Tong Ying-kit, the first person charged under China's draconian security law for Hong Kong -- arrested on the first full day that the law went into effect this past July 1st -- has been held in custody all this time since he was denied bail.  Tomorrow will see the High Court ruling on whether he has been detained lawfully after his lawyers filed a writ of habeus corpus.  How the decision goes should tell us how successful Hong Kong's lawyers can be in their efforts to make sure that justice (still) will be served in Hong Kong.

More than incidentally, the head of Tony Ying-kit's legal team is Philip Dykes.  Apart from being the current head of the Bar Association,  he is on the record as worrying that the national security law "sounds like a reverse engineering of the ill-fated extradition bill. Rather than you going to the mainland, the mainland comes to you."  Tomorrow's court decision could well give (further) credence to his suggestion.

Typhoon and misgovernment alerts in Hong Kong!

 

Getting ready for a typhoon's visit today

 

After a severe typhoon hit Hong Kong 

(the last time back in September 2018)

 

The Hong Kong Observatory raised the alert regarding Typhoon Higos coming near Hong Kong today -- and over the course of the day, typhoon signal numbers 1, 3 and 8 have been raised; the last -- and highest -- at 10.40pm.  If I'm not mistaken, this is the first visit by a typhoon in the vicinity of Hong Kong of the year -- and like Tropical Storm Wipha last year, raising the T8 signal for it feels akin to a storm in a teacup since, thus far at least, Higos hasn't brought that much rain (including compared to this day last year), wind and damage!

 

Maybe I've become blasé after having experienced the really severe typhoon that was Mangkhut back in 2018.  But I can't help but wonder whether the decision to raise the T8 signal with this (as with Wipha) is as much an excuse to further get Hong Kongers to stay home.  And if the principles of Li Ka-shing's field apply once more and the typhoon's severity is downgraded in time for people to head to the office tomorrow, I will not chalk it down to coincidence and/or good fortune once again that this is so!

 

By a similar token, many of us can't help but suspect that Hong Kong's social distancing measures for the Wuhan coronavirus will only be relaxed after September 6th (the original scheduled date for the now postponed Legislative Council elections) or even as late as October 1st (so that there will not be another mega protest that day); and this despite Hong Kong reporting 44 new Wuhan coronavirus cases yesterday and 36 today -- making it two weeks now since our new daily case numbers started climbing down from their triple digit third wave peak. 

 

That this most infectious and most deadly of the waves of the pandemic to hit Hong Kong to date stemmed from some of the over 200,000 individuals that the Hong Kong government exempted from testing and quarantining is hard to deny anymore. As a reminder: the 33 categories of exempted persons included seamen and aircrew but also selected business executives from major listed companies and government personnel from Mainland China.  Another reminder: among that last group are the 60 medical "technicians" here to take part in a planned mass testing of the local populace which local medical experts have deemed unnecessary, unhelpful and a big waste of money -- and many Hong Kongers view with suspicion as a scheme to collect our DNA (a la the Uighurs in Xinjiang).

The powers that be are expecting some four to five million Hong Kongers to take part in this (thus far) officially voluntary testing scheme. I wouldn't be surprised though if that number ends up being far lower -- in which case the disparity between government estimates and actual reality will show once again how big is the disconnect between "the gormless government under the leadership of the toxic Carrie Lam" and the people. 

Speaking of Hong Kong's worst Chief Executive ever: today happens to be the 40th anniversary of her time in government.  And if it wasn't bad enough that yesterday saw the Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute (PORI) release the results of its latest survey which showed that she has a jaw-droppingly bad -54 percent net rating but this career civil servant chose today to defend a new civil service guideline to dismiss newly recruited civil servants if they get arrested and charged for taking part in protests and illegal activities.

What happened to the common law presumption of "innocent until proven guilty"?  Some would say it fell by the wayside after the coming into effect of the national security law in Hong Kong less than two months ago.  But, in truth, a good many of those who are supposed to uphold the law ceased to be trusted to do so years ago. :(        

Messages of support and protest in Apple Daily ads this week (Photo-essay)

Baby-faced political activist Agnes Chow got eyes (particularly Japanese ones -- I didn't realize until this week that she is the face of the Hong Kong pro-democracy movement for many in Japan!) focusing on Hong Kong in the wake of her arrest (along with nine others this past Monday).  But for the most part, this has been the week of media tycoon -- and fellow arrestee -- Jimmy Lai, his Apple Daily, and Hong Kongers rallying around him and it. 

In an interview with Britain's The Guardian newspaper which came out yesterday, the media tycoon spoke about the future of protest in Hong Kong involving creativity and patience.  I think those who have been following the Hong Kong protests for a time know that Hong Kongers have made resistance an art form.  But it could be said that Hong Kongers have outdone themselves this week by coming out with yet more new forms of protest: ones that involved buying shares of parent company Next Media, copies of the Apple Daily or ads in the newspaper!

More than incidentally, I was actually pretty shocked by how few ads there were in the copy of Apple Daily that I bought on Tuesday.  So it was good to see more ads appear in the copies of the newspaper I bought later in the week.  Also heartening has been the messages communicated in, and by way of, many of the ads that have been placed in the newspaper (irrespective of size).  It's not just that many of them are quite lofty and inspirational in spirit (with quotes by the likes of Hannah Arendt and Martin Luther appearing in them) but, also, that they have been placed there -- at no small expense -- by supportive lovers of freedom (including individuals as well as small, local shops) rather than your more usual big, wealthy, multinational companies.  Have a look at the following selection; over the course of which I hope you'll be moved (too)... :)

Front page ad  this Friday paid for by 

the Hong Kong University Students' Union

 

Pages of small ads designed to look like

Lennon Walls in the newspaper yesterday

(There were 12 and half pages like this in all!)

 

Like the Lennon Walls that used to be found all over Hong Kong

(but no longer, alas), there are messages in English as well as Chinese

 

5201314 = Glory to Hong Kong

A pertinent quote from the Bible

 

A more profane (but still heartfelt) quote (this time

complete with colorful cartoon imagery)! :)

 

Message from a tshirt company

 

Not the kind of ad you'd expect to find in a tabloid, right? 

But that's Apple Daily and Hong Kong for you :)

Wuhan coronavirus concerns tinged with "national security" fears

Plenty of masks to choose from and buy

in Hong Kong these days! 

 

And yes, some people have taken to wearing 

more than one mask at one time! :O

 

This time last week, the big news in Hong Kong concerned 25 activists having been informed by the police that they'd be charged for taking part in the candlelight vigil at Victoria Park this past June 4th.  Also that day, the Hong Kong government talked about introducing a voluntary coronavirus testing scheme which, right from the start, many of us suspected had political rather than health motives behind it; this not least since it seemed based on faulty logic if we were really looking at the medical benefits of doing so.

 

Especially with Hong Kong's third coronavirus wave looking to have peaked -- touch wood! -- with the territory's daily new case numbers now looking to have settled down to double digit numbers again (like today's 48; down from the high of 149 recorded on July 30th), there would appear even less need now for the mooted mass testing of the populace.  However, I reckon that the chances of the government doing a u-turn about this -- the way it did with the all-day dining ban (after belatedly realizing that many people actually could not work from home) -- are super slim.  

 

In addition, it's looking quite likely that pressure will be put on people to take the "voluntary" tests; this especially after the authorities would get further egg on their face if health secretary Sophia Chan's stated estimate that between four to five million Hong Kong residents will take these tests which the government is paying for out of its coffers ends up being way off.  One way suggested to encourage (or, rather, coerce) people into taking the tests: requiring people to produce proof that they’re free of the coronavirus (by way of negative test results) before they’re allowed access to public places like malls, restaurants, or even public transport; something which comes across as a version of Mainland China's "social credit system" designed them to restrict the liberties of people the state considers to problem subjects!

 

Surely a better Wuhan coronavirus prevention measure is to further tighten entry into Hong Kong (or administer tests on more of those who are allowed to enter and/or pass through the territory)?  Instead, a good number of people from Mainland China are still being let in to Hong Kong minus quarantining and/or testing: be they CCP officials, medical personnel here to help administer that planned mass testing or passengers allowed to transit through Hong Kong International Airport starting from Saturday (i.e., tomorrow)!  And should it not be clear: Hong Kong medical experts do not unanimously approve of this -- or, for that matter, the mooted scheme to "reward" those who test negative after they elect to take coronavirus tests.

 

You'd think that a government with a low trust score would try to avoid making the public more suspicious of them than they already tend to be.  But, alas, there are just too many things happening which makes Hong Kongers think that things really are not like they should be.  Take for example the incident tonight involving democratic legislative councillor Ted Hui which saw him assaulted by the police after he stopped a car that he said had been following him for some days.  The police claimed that the car contained journalists whose movements should not be impeded.  But when was the last time the Hong Kong police treated journalists with such respect?  Which is why the suspicion is that the people tailing Ted Hui were from the national security bureau (who operate outside the laws of Hong Kong).  

Speaking of that national security bureau: Speculation has been mounting about their having commandeered another hotel for their use in addition to the branch of the Metropark over in Tai Hang.  In recent days, area residents living in the vicinity of the City Garden Hotel have reported seeing suspicious alterations to it and way more police in the largely residential area than should be the case.  

 

Suffice to say that they would not be happy campers if the secret police were to set up shop there -- be it in addition to the already established place over in Tai Hang or as the actual permanent location (since it was said that the Tai Hang Metropark would only be temporary housing for this still just less than one and a half month old office).  And my sympathies would be very much with them since I used to live in that area not so long ago!