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

  

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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