On the third anniverary of China imposing a national security law on Hong Kong

  

Armored police vehicle parked in the center of one of

Hong Kong's major shopping and dining area today

Today is the third anniversary of China's imposition of a national security law on Hong Kong.  This, along with tomorrow being the 26th anniversary of Hong Kong's handover by the British to China, looks to have prompted the international media to focus more on Hong Kong than it is generally wont to do.  

 

If truth be told, I'm not that up for reading that many of these "the state of Hong Kong" or even "what's happened to Hong Kong since the passing of the national security law" pieces -- because, well, I'm living it and it's not a very happy tale!  Reminders of Hong Kong not being what it used to be pre June 30th, 2020 -- or even February 28th, 2021, never mind June 12th, 2019, etc. -- abound and can be quite "in one's face".

 

Take this afternoon, when my stroll along the harborfront got punctuated by sightings of a number of police officers in stab-proof vests and such patrolling the area, I got confronted by the sight of a police armored vehicle smack dab in the middle of a shopping and dining area and I found a public urban park to be surrounded by other police vehicles, and filled with police officers, including representatives of the Counter Terrorism Response Unit!  And I faced the reality that today, yet another "yellow" shop that I like (the last branch of Chickeeduck, for the record) is permanently shuttering when I saw the long line of people trying to get in there and make purchases one last time.

 

Nonetheless, I have read a few pieces in the international media on Hong Kong (and Hong Kong pro-democracy figures) in recent days.  Among those which I've found really good and would like to recommend are a Nikkei Asia extended piece on Albert Ho, "Hong Kong's persecuted patriot" (subtitled "Rights lawyer Albert Ho has loved China for decades. Now he may die in jail for it").  And Samuel Bickett is spot on in pointing out that the article also invaluably covering "the wide ranging (and sometimes conflicting) interpretations of Chinese/Hongkong identity within the big tent Hong Kong human rights movement—nuances that are often missed by those following along abroad." 

 

 There's also an opinion piece by the Washington Post Editorial Board on Chow Hang-tung (who "resisted [and] kept the flame alive — literally, by helping organize candlelight vigils commemorating the violent attack on pro-democracy student protesters", and "is wrongly imprisoned and should be freed.").  More than incidentally, Chow's also in the news today as it's emerged that she has lodged an objection to the government's planned "Glory to Hong Kong" injunction, and appears to be the only person to have done so thus far.  Pretty incredible not just in terms of her courage (as more than one person has joked that doing so is a guaranteed path to prison) but, also, since, as the Washington Post piece points out, she is currently in "prison, where she has no internet access, no computer and limited access to books."

 

In addition, there's this -- not so much an article as a report/statement by Reporters Without Borders entitled "Amid shrinking press freedom, Hong Kong journalists in need of more international support".  It begins thus: "Three years after the enactment of the National Security Law in Hong Kong, a Reporters Without Borders (RSF) delegation undertook a mission to the territory to assess journalists’ safety needs and strengthen the organisation’s capacity-building and emergency assistance programmes."

 

Among its findings: "Over the past three years, in line with Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s crusade against journalism, the Hong Kong government has prosecuted at least 28 media workers and press freedom defenders, 13 of whom remain in detention. The government also forcibly shut down independent daily newspapers Apple Daily and Stand News, while six other media outlets had no other choice but disband due to pressure."  Still: "Despite the government’s severe moves to restrict press freedom, Hong Kong still counts thousands of journalists who strive to provide news to the world. This mission allowed us to better understand the new threats they face, namely intimidation and legal harassment, which will enable us to provide them with more comprehensive support."

 

Speaking of intimidation and legal harrasment of journalists, there's this piece today by The Japan Times about Yoshiaki Ogawa, a Japanese journalist who has been "actively following Hong Kong issues since 2014", having been denied entry into Hong Kong yesterday evening.  "I’ve worked to convey things about Hong Kong to Japan, but it was not like I was going to do any (suspicious) activities in the city,” Ogawa said shortly after arriving at the airport. “(This incident) has truly made me feel how Hong Kong has changed … this would have been unthinkable before.”"  Indeed.  

 

Something else pointed out in the report: "In December, Michiko Kiseki, a photographer, was reportedly denied entry to Hong Kong and deported to Japan. Earlier this month, a Japanese street performer who calls himself Mr. Wally was also denied entry into the city."  But this is the first case of a Japanese journalist being denied entry into Hong Kong.  Hello Hong Kong?  Proof, actually, that Hong Kong is not back (to normal)!

Of thought crimes, laws for thee but not for me, yet another arrest by the national security police, and Taiwan matters

Filming taking place last July for what I then (already)

wondered was a police propaganda film (as there were

soooo many cops about the place!)

 

I read some news yesterday evening that disturbed me so that I thought it'd be best to sleep on it before commenting/writing about it.  One of them involves the prosecution in the Stand News trial alleging in their closing arguments that "it did not matter whether the two former chief editors had a seditious intent, instead the focus should be whether the materials were seditious, and whether the editors knew they were seditious."  

 

If truth be told, some 24 hours after I first read this, I'm still feeling rather nonplussed by this.  Put another way: part of me I feels like I was reading Jabberwocky, and that the world's gone mad!  And then there's this other bit to process: "Citing the judgement of a 1868 Irish case that read “sedition is a crime against society, nearly allied to that of treason,” [lead prosecutor] Laura Ng said it showed that the sedition law was deemed necessary 150 years ago, a time when “television, radio and the internet were yet to be invented.”  

 

As writer-activist Promise Li was moved to Tweet in response: "Beijing’s regime has used a colonial era law against striking workers to ban masks at protests [in Hong Kong], and now used a colonial era law to quell Irish anti-colonial revolts in the 1860s to show that they don’t need evidence to prove editors guilty of sedition since the law is preemptive."  In so doing, he helped serve up a reminder that it's not just the national security law that is being used to prosecute and persecute. (And Article 23 is still to come -- maybe as soon as before the end of this year.)

 

Then there's this other piece of news which actually attracted more attention over on Hong Kong Twitter:  "Hong Kong’s film censorship law does not apply to government screenings, the city’s censorship authority has said after local media reported that a police publicity film was screened at police headquarters despite not having gone through the official vetting process."  This even though: "Under the [Film Censorship O]rdinance, which was amended in 2021 to include national security clauses, all films must be approved by [the Office for Film, Newspaper and Article Administration (OFNAA)] to be screened publicly in Hong Kong. Any that are deemed contrary to national security can be barred from screening, or the authority can request changes such as the removal of certain scenes."

 

If that doesn't sound wrong and unreasonable to you on its own, consider this: there are now films that are looked upon as illegal for people here in Hong Kong to view even in the privacy of their own homes as well as (other) private gatherings because they have not been approved of by OFNAA. Also, since the film censorship law was amended, "there have been more reports of filmmakers being asked to cut scenes from their movies, including one that showed a 2014 Umbrella Movement scene that lasted less than a second."

 

And if you think it was just a member of the film censorship board thinks this: "The police also told [Hong Kong Free Press] on Monday that the Film Censorship Ordinance did not apply to the government."  As journalist Ryan Ho Kilpatrick Tweeted in reaction: "Rare sighting of government outright saying they’re above the law."

 

Some other sample reactions on Twitter by various netizens: "They said the "one rule for us" part out loud"; "Rules for thee but not for us... Hong Kong rule of law"; and "But of course some animals are more equal than others…".  Then there's this in greater detail by Nathan Hammond (in a Twitter thread): 

If I were an administrator in Hong Kong and worried about the appearance of placing police and government above the law I would maybe not state that laws don’t apply to the government.

Just me, but I’d get them to apologize, pay the fine to the gov, and go get the rubber stamp.

 

Like, this is just an accounting and paperwork problem if you follow the rules with the bonus of setting whatever precedent you want in the “prosecution” of the offense.

Instead they chose the much worse option of, “the laws don’t apply to the government!”

 

They’re so used to operating with impunity that they continue to advertise the breakdown of the rule of law in Hong Kong rather than taking advantage of these opportunities to get an even better outcome for themselves.

Exactly.  

 

Oh, and here's something else that happened yesterday: yet another arrest by the national security police.  This time of a 63-year-old man for allegedly "seditious" social media posts.  "According to the police, the man – who was apprehended in Tsim Sha Tsui on Monday – was suspected of publishing online content “several times” that incited the overthrowing of the Central government as well as hatred towards the Central and Hong Kong authorities."  Sad, but we've heard this before.     

 

But, then, there's also this: "He also allegedly advocated Taiwan independence and Hong Kong independence, and “desecrated” the national flag and national anthem."  Do you see the new bit:  Advocating "Taiwan independence", not "just" "Hong Kong independence"?!

 

Coincidentally (or maybe not), "Taiwan residents have been warned against “accidentally stepping into a minefield” and being arrested under Hong Kong’s national security law while travelling to the city by the self-ruled island’s authorities." (More than by the way: note the Hong Kong Free Press' careful description of Taiwan in the previous sentence!) 

 

And should you doubt their seriousness, the interestingly named Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) of Taiwan "reminded Taiwan residents to register their personal information with the government before going to Hong Kong to allow the authorities to assist anyone who may be arrested in the city."  It also stated the following on its website: "Even if you are not a Hongkonger and do not reside in Hong Kong, you run the risk of being arrested if you enter Hong Kong… or transit through the city with so-called ‘criminal behaviour’".  Words the world, not just Taiwanese folks, should heed, I reckon!  

Leaving on a Jet Plane: Final Images of Hong Kong by Photographers Who Have Emigrated Recently (despite clearly f**king loving Hong Kong) (Photo-essay)

Two years ago today, the final issue of Apple Daily came out.  Two years on, a number of its senior editors and executives are behind bars -- including its publisher, Jimmy Lai.  And while a good number of its former staffers are not behind bars, quite a few have left the media industry (and become such as taxi drivers) and still others have left Hong Kong.

Speaking of which: there's an exhibition currently on at Lumenvisum -- but which is scheduled to end tomorrow -- entitled Leaving on a Jet Plane: Final Images of Hong Kong by Photographers Who Have Emigrated Recently featuring work by at least one former Apple Daily photographer.  (My apologies for not having blogged about it earlier but I found out about it -- by way of an article about it by the Hong Kong Free Press -- only recently myself!)  

 

When reading about the exhibition, I was shocked to find that: it features works by not, say, two or five or 10 or even 20 but 31 -- yes, thirty-one! -- photographers who have left Hong Kong in recent years.  Also, that a number of them are names I recognise -- by way of such as photography credits in newspapers.  Seeing their work, it's clear that they are talented and really f**king love Hong Kong; so it is a loss and tells you quite a bit of the state of Hong Kong that they have decided to be part of the exodus from a place whose views they have shared via this exhibition -- views which can tear at one's heart...

 

I returned to the Jockey Club Creative Arts Centre (where

I had gone to check out another photo exhibition last year)

to view this particular photography show

 

View of the exhibition, with Tse Ming-chong's

On the Road in the foreground

 

Samson Cheung's series of photographs is entitled Home

 and documents what would have been an ordinary evening

at home in Hong Kong for his family (who now reside in Canada)

Shan Kwok's Until we meet again are photos of the 

backs of her parents who, unlike her, 

have remained in Hong Kong

 

Jimmy Wong's That Night in June

was taken at Admiralty on June 16th, 2019

 

Chan Kai-chun (aka MC)'s Everything is as Usual

documents students revisiting a site of trauma

-- specifically, the Hong Kong Polytechnic University

 

Look carefully and you can see the characters "ga yau" and 

"Hong Kong" etched on the brick pavement in Joe Lau's Origin

 

Winson Wong's work is untitled but, in the exhibition program, he -- 

who's moved to Taiwan -- stated for it that "We came from HONG KONG"

(and, yes, I choked up upon seeing those words and photo :S)

No respite from politics and documentation of repression even on a public holiday

  

Dragon boating is a pretty big deal in Hong Kong!

 

Today is Tuen Ng, a public holiday in Hong Kong.  Tuen Ng is associated with dragon boat racing, but actually has a political association -- seeing as it's a day that commemorates the death of Qu Yuan,  a legendary patriotic poet, symbol of the people and folk hero banished for opposing decisions made by the rulers of his state and even accused of treason.  (The sticky rice dumplings traditionally eaten on this day stem from the rice people scattered into the water to feed the fish, to prevent them from eating Qu Yuan's body after he committed suicide by drowning himself in a river!)

 

Which makes it rather weird that pro-Beijing mouthpiece Ta Kung Pao chose today to run a full A1 report citing legal-political figures urging the police to arrest national security law suspects in exile such as former pro-democracy legislative councillors Nathan Law, Dennis Kwok and Ted Hui.  Though, I guess, it just shows that the continued political repression continues apace even on what should be a day where people try to look for pleasant diversions.

 

Meanwhile, one of the Hong Kong Free Press's main pieces for today is on one of Hong Kong's heroines, Bao Choy -- who, against the odds, won a rare victory for press freedom earlier this month after her conviction for making false statements to access vehicle records was overturned by the Court of Final Appeal earlier this month.  But as today's piece pointed out, her victory was bitter sweet; and that, upon leaving the court that June morning, "Bao Choy was overwhelmed by a mixture of jubilation and sadness."   

 

In what Hong Kong Free Press chief editor Tom Grundy has described as the first English language interview piece on her, we learn that: "Choy Yuk-ling, now 39, is better known as “Bao”, a nickname once given to her to describe her round face. But following her ordeal over the past three years, she has lost weight and her features have become more angular.  After her arrest in late 2020 she joined the Nieman Fellowship at Harvard University, then returned to her home city and established a new media outlet called The Collective – handling all the procedures associated with her court case along the way."

 

Irene Chan's piece is one that gives insights into Bao Choy, her view on the state of her home city and what she feels she still can and must do. "“When I returned to Hong Kong, I didn’t want to get a job in mainstream media any more, ” Bao said. She soon came up with the idea of establishing a small-scale media outlet to cover local news, focusing on feature stories. “We have to admit that Hong Kong is gradually getting worse. And it will continue to deteriorate, ” Bao said. “But it is still important to meticulously document every small change of the city.”"  And the following line really hit home for me: "“For those who are still living here, every small change affects us, right?”"

 

At the same time, when viewed over three years, one realises that so much has changed in Hong Kong since China imposed a national security law on the city on June 30th, 2020.  You don't have to take my word for it.  Instead, read Johannes Chan's piece which came out yesterday in USALI Perspectives. The following excerpts should give a good measure of the case made for the national security law having had a devastating impact on Hong Kong:

As of May 25 of this year, nearly the three-year mark, 251 people had been arrested for national security offenses under this and other laws.  That is, someone was arrested on average every 4.2 days. Those arrested include legislators, journalists, students, academics, and political activists.  Recently a Hong Kong student who allegedly posted pro-independence messages on social media while studying in Japan was arrested on a brief visit to Hong Kong, becoming the first person arrested for actions taken outside Hong Kong.  Nearly four in five of those charged with national security offenses have been denied bail, and some have spent more than two years in detention awaiting trial. The conviction rate so far is 100%.    

Yet the impact of the NSL has gone far beyond the number of arrests or convictions.  Major media organizations have been forced to close.  Over 60 civil society organizations, including political parties, trade unions, humanitarian funds, professional groups, students unions, and human rights groups, have disbanded or moved out of Hong Kong.  Books have been removed from the shelves of public libraries.  A core secondary school class called Liberal Studies, alleged to have led young people to the streets in the 2019 civil unrest, has been abolished.  The Legislative Council has been reconstituted so that it is comprised almost entirely of pro-establishment members, and the government has proposed reducing the elected membership of District Councils from 100% to 20%. The National Security Office tips hotline received over 400,000 reports from its launch on November 5, 2020 through April 2023, or more than 442 reports every day.

But, in fact, it's just the beginning of the piece that sees Johannes Chan laying out in quite a bit of detail how the national security law "has significantly impacted the due process of law"!  "The presumption of bail is replaced by a presumption against bail in cases involving national security — and not just prosecution under the NSL. (See HKSAR v Ng Hau Yi Sydney [2021] HKCFA 42.)  The secretary for justice is empowered to waive the right to jury trial for national security offenses, and so far has done so in all national security trials before the High Court."  And on and on it goes!

 

A reminder: in 2015, Johannes Chan was unanimously recommended by a selection committee headed by the university president to be appointed as the University of Hong Kong's vice-chancellor (academic staffing & resources), only to be rejected by the university's governing council.  That fact should give some food for thought to those who (mistakenly) think that Hong Kong's troubles only began in -- or be traced to the political unrest of -- 2019.  Rather, as many people have pointed out, 2019 was a reaction, not the cause.  In the words of historian Jeppe Mulich: "The protests didn't cause the crackdown. The crackdown is a manifestation of the authoritarian backsliding the protests were pushing back against in the first place."   

Updates on the Double Ducks, the Glory to Hong Kong saga, and the case of the Hong Konger arrested for social media posts made in Japan

  

One of the few photos I have in which there are two 

inflated giant yellow rubber ducks rather than just one!

 

Let's start the week with a few updates.  Firstly, the Double Ducks are no longer in Hong Kong; with one of them having been deflated in the full view of the public -- again! -- yesterday afternoon!  In the short time that they were in Hong Kong, they spawned memes galore, and were the cause of lots of mirth and entertainment.  And helped make Hong Kong a bit more yellow (again) for a while!

 

Speaking of there being more Hong Kong yellow about: The latest twist in the Glory to Hong Kong tale sees the protest anthem -- specifically, the versions by DGX Music -- "reuploaded to streaming platforms KKBox and Spotify, days after [its composer, known as Thomas, told the Hong Kong Free Press] that it had been removed by the distributor."  (It's worth noting, however, that the song that "dominated the Apple iTunes charts this month until it abruptly vanished last week [is] still missing from Apple Music".)

 

"Thomas – from distributor Dgx Music – previously told HKFP that he was unable to explicitly explain the song’s disappearance from platforms."  But, although some suspicion did fall on him/his group for having practiced self-censorship and removed the song from the streaming platforms, it's one that he's now emphatically denied.  

 

And in a Facebook post today, "he said that a new, 2023 album of songs – including Glory to Hong Kong and three new tracks – had been reshared on various platforms".  Also, that "I resolutely oppose any behaviour that attempts to curb freedom of thought and speech… I really understand everyone’s view that they ‘do not want to lose the freedom of choosing music either.’ Despite facing different difficulties, I still want to defend this aspiration."

 

On a more somber note: the story about the Hong Konger arrested for sedition as a result of social media posts she made while studying and living in Japan has now been picked up by the Japanese press.  The following are quotes from a Japan Times article that came out yesterday:

Yuen Ching-ting, 23, had returned from Tokyo in February to renew her identity card and was arrested in early March — a day before her scheduled flight to Japan — over her posts on social media, the South China Morning Post reported...

 

Police said in April that her posts included phrases such as “Hong Kong independence” and “Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times”...

 

The defense pointed out that most of the posts in the case were made overseas, with the court hearing that only two were made from Hong Kong, the South China Morning Post reported.

Yuen’s lawyers also referred to the statute of limitations for sedition offenses, set at six months, claiming that she made her last social media post more than a year ago in May 2022, Nikkei Asia reported.

But the prosecutor said Yuen’s posts to Facebook and Instagram came between September 2018 and early March this year, adding that they were accessible in Hong Kong even if they were created in Japan, the report said.

I don't know about you but that last bit is shocking to me!  (For the record: the sedition law that Yuen has been charged with breaking is not universally applicable the way that the national security law is supposed to be.  But if the prosecution's declaration that just because a social media post is accessible in Hong Kong, the laws of Hong Kong apply to it...!)

 

Some other points worth noting from the article: "Under the conditions of her bail, Yuen is required to delete all the social media posts related to her case, report to a police station twice a week, and cannot travel abroad, join online chat groups with more than five people, or speak to the media, the report said." In addition: "Police are also allowed access to her social media accounts, if necessary, according to the South China Morning Post."  And I'm sure they'll deem it very necessary!  Also, I would love to be wrong about this but it sounds like the police intend to use her accounts to investigate/possibly implicate her friends and other contacts.

 

Another detail about this case that I find really chilling: Yuen was arrested as a result of a tip off using the National Security Reporting Hotline (that was launched in November 2020 and reportedly had attracted more than 400,000 tips in 2022)!  Think about it: people are actually informing on others; and with consequence.  If nothing else, this is just going to create more distrust, even fear, among Hong Kongers of one another.  Something that does not make for a healthy, happy society at all! :(

Interesting creature and vessel spottings on an afternoon walk along the Victoria Harbourfront (Photo-essay)

This has been an emotional week.  Along with the latest twists in the Glory to Hong Kong saga (and quite a bit else which I've not gone into on this blog such else the Hong Kong student charged with sedition for online posts she made while in Japan), June 12th, 15th and 16th have also fallen this week (and thus the fourth anniversaries of key events that took place in Hong Kong).

 

So my plan for today had included going and visiting the Double Ducks again now that the deflated one has been reinflated, and news has come that they'll be gone from Hong Kong after this week.  But thunderstorms for much of the day put paid to that planned excursion.  And, actually, the weather's been pretty bad (or, at least, wet) for much of this week; so much so that I reckon it'd be nice to get a reminder that Hong Kong can be sunny, and really beautiful when so!    

 

So... here's putting up some photos from the majorly sunny day that was last Saturday.  For, as it so happens, I did take a bunch of photos on my way to see the giant rubber ducks at Admiralty, not just when I got there... and feel that this batch provides us with some welcome whimsy. ;b   

It was super hot when I took this photo, and not many people

were out in the sun and thus privy to this beautiful sight!

 

What appears to be a juvenile black-crowned night heron

(complete with "blue eye-shadow" ;b)

 

Not something one expects to have in the same photo:

dragon boats and duck (pedal) boats!

 

Dragon boats of the Royal Hong Kong Yacht Club in action

weeks ahead of Tuen Ng this year! 

 

A traditional junk boat in Victoria Harbour

(amidst a very modern looking backdrop)

 

The yellowest Star Ferry I've ever seen...

 

...thanks to the Yellow Ducks (mania)! :D

 

Adding to the afternoon's whimsy: this frog was there 

 (along with the dolphin rubbish bin) among the crowd 

at Admiralty drawn to see the giant yellow ducks )! :D

The Glory to Hong Kong saga continues, with further twists and turns!

At protest marches in 2019, it was not uncommon to hear 

Glory to Hong Kong being played and/or sung along the way

Four years ago today, Marco Leung fell to his death from scaffolding at the Pacific Place mall that he had mounted to hang up a protest banner after a one million-strong protest march on June 9th had failed to convince Carrie Lam to withdraw the much-opposed bill and the police had attacked protestors who had assembled at Admiralty on June 12th.  This evening, some Hong Kongers went over to Admiralty to mark the occasion and mourn his passing.  And like with and on June 4th, the police were there to mar the occasion.    

As of the time of writing, no arrests have been made of people attempting to mourn though.  Thank goodness for small mercies.  And it says so much about national security law-era Hong Kong that we are considering such matters to be mercies.  As is the fact that the great firewall of China has not descended upon Hong Kong.  At least for now.  

 

On a not unrelated note: Hong Kong Twitter was much aflutter last night upon the discovery that protest anthem Glory to Hong Kong appeared to be no longer available "on several major music streaming sites and social media platforms, after the government sought an injunction to ban the tune."  A reminder: the injunction has not yet been ordered; what with the court hearing for it having been delayed from June 12th to July 21st.

 

"The song rose to the top of Apple iTunes’ charts last week after the Hong Kong government sought an injunction from the courts to ban “unlawful acts” related to the song and any derivatives of it, including the lyrics and melody.  But," according to an Associated Press (AP) report that came out earlier today, "the song was no longer available on music streaming platforms such as Spotify and Apple Music on Wednesday. The original version of the tune was also not available on Facebook and Instagram’s Reels function."

 

The conclusion that many freaked out folks leapt to was that the streaming platforms had pre-emptively removed Glory to Hong Kong ahead of an injunction being served.  But particularly after it was noticed that it was only the versions by the song's composer(s), Thomas DGX YHL, that had gone missing (with some other versions remaining availably), and Spotify issued a statement that it had not pulled the song, it was belatedly realized that this was not the case.

 

And while suspicion had then turned to Thomas DGX YHL (thanks in part to its response to enquiries sounding rather cryptic: i.e., [We] are currently handling some technical issues that are irrelevant to the streaming platforms, sorry for the temporary effect."), the party responsible was that which few of us had previously thought about.  Specifically, it was the distributor -- the middleman company which handled the Glory to Hong Kong's licensing to music platforms -- which had pulled Thomas DGX YHL's versions of the songs off the streaming platforms!  

 

Amidst the worry and confusion as to who had pulled (versions of) Glory to Hong Kong from the streaming platforms (and made them inaccessible the world over, not just in Hong Kong), many people lost sight of the following point that Rachel Cheung was good enough to remind us of: "How Google and other streaming platforms may react to the potential court order is secondary. The core of the story is that a mere song, a melody, several musical notes strung together are sufficient to be deemed a threat to national security... because it does what the government couldn’t, no matter how much they spend on [Happy Hong Kong] campaigns and patriotic education. The sad thing is it doesn’t take a court order for people to begin to self-censor. The song disappeared from streaming platforms."

 

Also, as per another of her Tweets: "Now is a good time to revisit what the composer of Glory To Hong Kong, PI told me last year: “If a regime were to react so severely that a simple song is banned and all who are involved are arrested, it shows that it is the regime itself that fears the people and its ideas.”"

 

Without taking away from these valid and important points, here's also noting that this whole Glory to Hong Kong legal saga really is becoming really weird.  For one thing, the media were barred from reporting the name of the Department of Justice's lead lawyer for the case and she was removed from the Hong Kong government directory but it has become public knowledge nonetheless.  And it doesn't help that she was found to have been involved in denying Tong Ying-kit, the first defendant in a national security law trial, a trial by jury! 

 

For another, the presiding judge, Wilson Lam, has come under criticism -- "a serious reprimand", in fact, from Chief Justice Andrew Leung -- after being found guilty of plagiarism in not just one but a number of previous cases!  Put another way: this would seem to call into question his judgement and also ethics!  So now the question is: will and should he be allowed to continue as the judge for such an important matter (the first major legal challenge to U.S. tech companies over politically sensitive content on their platforms in Hong Kong, in fact)?!

The "Glory to Hong Kong" injunction decision delayed -- from one sensitive Hong Kong date to another!

Spotted earlier today: a sign that people still 

yearn for freedom in Hong Kong

 

Back in May 2020, when China announced that it would impose a national security law on Hong Kong, I worried that the Great Firewall of China would be extended to also go around Hong Kong in one fell swoop, and went and got a VPN (Virtual Private Network) -- to be able to "climb over the (virtual) wall" to access such as this social media platform -- for just in case.  That didn't happen and, as it so happened, I didn't use the VPN even once in the two years that I had a subscription for it.  But in recent days, I've felt a need to get a VPN again. 

 

Hopefully, I won't have use for it within the next two years. But, again, I worry. Because of it being so that, as stated in a Wall Street Journal piece out today: "Bit by bit, American tech giants are shutting out users in Hong Kong, where moves by authorities to thwart online dissent are shifting the target from individuals to platforms such as Google’s YouTube".

 

Today, Monday (June 12th -- the fourth anniversary of a day that lives in infamy for many Hong Kongers thanks to the terrible behaviour of the police), saw a hearing scheduled of a court order sought by Hong Kong authorities to block the dissemination online of a popular pro-democracy anthem, Glory to Hong Kong. The order cites 32 videos on YouTube of the song, which has lyrics that contain a slogan -- "Liberate Hong Kong; revolution of our times" -- that the Hong Kong government says amounts to advocating secession.  

 

As noted in the Wall Street Journal article: "It is the first major legal challenge to U.S. tech companies over politically sensitive content on their platforms in the city."  And the chances are high that the court will approve it since the presiding judge is a national security judge: that is, one of those who has been handpicked by the government to hear national security law cases -- which, thus far, have gone 100% in favour of the government. 

 

Unexpectedly though, Judge Wilson Chan did not (automatically) grant the injunction today.  Rather, he adjourned the hearing until July 21st (one more "sensitive date" for Hong Kong due to what happened in 2019!) after he asked what lawyer Kevin Yam categorised as "some really basic questions and the Hong Kong Department of Justice was not ready to answer even the basics"!  (As in: Is the injunction meant to be applicable worldwide? What's to happen after the injunction is issued?  And what is the scope of the intended targets of the ban?)

One would hope that these questions would give the Department of Justice pause and get them realizing that they may be biting off more than they can chew.  Sadly though, the chances are high that come July 21st, they'll be back in court seeking the injunction and that Judge Wilson Chan will grant it.  In other words: it is highly likely that we've just got a temporary reprieve for what they want to effect.

And even without the injunction being granted, the fact of the matter is that, again quoting today's Wall Street Journal article by Newley Purnell: there already has been "a slow creep of tech giants treating Hong Kong more like a city in mainland China. Apple has joined with China’s Tencent to filter suspicious websites, with users complaining it temporarily blocked access to legitimate sites such as Twitter rival Mastodon. Disney has declined to offer on its streaming service two episodes of “The Simpsons” that it worried could run afoul of the national-security law, according to a person familiar with the matter."

 

By the way, for those who didn't realise: Mainland China "has had no access to foreign social-media services such as Twitter and Facebook since 2009" while Hong Kong has.  Also, "Google in 2010 withdrew its search-engine business in mainland China after refusing to agree to censor its search results in the country."

 

Still, make no mistake that, if -- or maybe, more accurately, when? -- granted, the court injunction to block Glory to Hong Kong would be a major game changer.  In the view of George Chen, former head of public policy for Greater China at Facebook parent Meta Platforms, it "could amount to the “opening of floodgates” of legal action against U.S. tech giants".  

 

As reported in the Wall Street Journal piece: "Hong Kong’s move to censor the pro-democracy song on YouTube signals that U.S. tech companies should anticipate further challenges over sensitive content, Chen said."  Also, here's the general fear: ""This time it is about the song, next time it could be something else,” he said." And you can bet that the way things are going, there will be a next time and another next time and another next time, and sooner rather than later too. :(