defrog: (Default)
Kung hei fat choi, as we say in Hong Kong.

The Year of the Wood Snake begins today.

Would you like a playlist to celebrate?

Cos I have one right here ready to go. And it doesn't give a f*** about your war, or your president.





You’re welcome.

Get on the snake,

This is dF
defrog: (45 frog)
Have some wabbit twacks.




Down the wabbit hole,

This is dF
defrog: (Default)
Today marks the 26th anniversary of my arrival in Hong Kong. 

How it started / how it's going



But seriously. 

I don't have time to do a proper post, but suffice to say that between the slide into an authoritarian state and our Zero COVID strategy – and all of that in the last three years – HK is a much different place than it was when I got here. 

The COVID situation here is especially stressful – NBC News explains why here but essentially we went from 12,000 cases and 213 deaths in the first week of February 2022 (which took us two years to accumulate) to 1,047,690 cases and 5,896 deaths as of today. 

All that in just six weeks. And mainly because HK had no strategy apart from "don't let the COVID in", which is the strategy Beijing told us to adopt because that's what they're doing. Maybe the govt thought having a fallback plan would be an insult to Beijing's wisdom? 

Anyway, here we are.

The good news: The fifth COVID wave is subsiding. The bad news: the national security crackdown is poised to get much worse. For all of Carrie Lam's efforts in the past couple of years, we're still relatively more free compared to China. And you can bet your bottom dollar Xi Jinping wants to fix that, as does our current security chief, who hates us and will jail as many of us as it takes to shut us up and love Xi Jinping as much as he does.

On the bright side, I'm still married and we'll be celebrating 25 years next week. So there's that.

Developing ...

Tales from the dark side, 

This is dF




defrog: (Default)

Given how hard Hong Kong’s pro-democracy activists have been fighting to establish true democracy in Hong Kong, you’d think they’d also be happy at the news that the US has managed to survive Donald Trump’s attempt to destroy democracy there, and that Trump has been denied a second term.

 

And you’d be not entirely correct.

 

Some pro-Democracy activists in HK (not all, but a lot) are disappointed in Biden’s victory, and up to Election Day were hoping out loud that Trump would win re-election.

 

If that sounds odd considering Trump basically did to BLM protesters and America in general what Carrie Lam did to them, well yes it is.

 

This WaPo story provides a good explanation of what’s going on, as does this Twitter thread from Sharon Yam. The short version:

 

1. With China now actively oppressing HK, they are in desperate need of overseas political allies. They want a US strongman who will crush Xi Jinping and the CCP, and they think Trump is that guy. They like that Trump has disrupted every polite political norm regarding China and Taiwan, and that he blames China for COVID-19, and that he has taken action against China for its treatment of HK (namely, signing the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act (HKHRDA) and imposing sanctions on HK leaders for violating human rights).

 

2. A lot of the younger pro-Democracy activists don't really follow US politics that closely, so don’t have much of an idea of just what BLM is or the historical context in which it is happening.

 

3. What they do know about US politics from the last few years largely comes from the same funnel of disinformation that informs Trump and his MAGA base. Jimmy Lai – the media tycoon and publisher of Apple Daily (the last pro-Democracy newspaper left in HK) currently arrested under the National Security Law – has been pushing a lot of pro-Trump pieces in his paper that echoes the kind of stuff you hear on Fox News. Meanwhile a lot of pro-Trump posts in HK tend to parrot just about every conspiracy theory you’ve ever heard, from Deep State plots and Fake News Liberal Media to Obama teaming up with the former Italian PM to steal the election via satellite and “The Capitol Riots were Antifa in disguise”.

 

4. They think Biden will be soft on the CCP because they’re under the impression that Democrat Presidents generally aren’t as hawkish as Republicans. Which is not really accurate, historically speaking (see Points 2 and 3). If nothing else, the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act was a very bipartisan bill passed by Congress, not some unilateral executive order Trump cooked up.

 

Anyway, it’s weird – especially when remembering Trump himself supports and admires Xi Jinping (as he does with most dictators and strongmen). And while he did at some point say he supported HK protesters, he initially planned to veto the HKHRDA, he only signed it to put pressure on China to get a better trade deal out of them.

 

It’s a minor thing in terms of the US election, of course – the political opinions of HK activists aren’t going to affect the outcome one way or another.

 

But it’s potentially damaging to the HK democracy movement, which needs unity now more than ever. At the moment a US-style rift is developing (at least online) between pro-Trump activists who want Trump to kick the CCP’s ass and anti-Trump activists who think the movement loses credibility if it’s not in solidarity with US BLM protesters also fighting oppression.

 

As you might expect, I’m inclined to agree with the latter view– partly because I have a pretty good handle on US politics (hopefully), and also because I think it’s hypocritical to oppose oppression in your own backyard while advocating or turning a blind eye to it elsewhere just because you think you’ll benefit from it. If you oppose Xi Jinping but support Trump, that tells me you don’t really oppose dictatorship – you just want a dictator that’s on your side.

 

And sure, the objective is for neither dictator to control HK – but the thing about attaining power you’ve never had before because the system was rigged against you, is that it’s always tempting to take steps to ensure you never lose that power again for the good of the country because the losing side is just Too Dangerous To Be Allowed Back In Power.

 

And we know where that road leads.

 

Anyway, one thing everyone agrees on is that Hong Kong is now effectively a police state and a dictatorship masquerading as a partial democracy. So whatever they think of Biden, hopefully his China policy will keep the pressure on in ways that don’t result in World War 3, and we can stop arguing about that and focus on the task at hand.

 

On the other hand, we already know that the damage done from disinformation and gaslighting is difficult to undo. That’s why America is in for a long decade as Trump’s legacy festers in the MAGA cult at large and living in an alternate reality from the rest of us. The same may be true for a significant portion of the HK democracy movement – and that’s not really what we need at a time when our own govt is trying to write its own alt-reality and force the rest of us to accept it or face possible jail time (at least if we speak truth out loud).

 

Down the rabbit hole,

 

This is dF

defrog: (license to il)
One thing many of us in HK have noticed over the past couple of years is how public statements from the HK govt – whether it’s chief executive Carrie Lam, department heads or other senior officials – were sounding increasingly similar to public statements from Beijing officials, especially when it came to discussing the 2019 protests, the pro-Democracy movement in general, the implementation of the National Security Law, and any govt leader overseas expressing an opinion about it.

To explain: for decades, whenever Beijing sends Foreign Ministry spokespersons out to talk about the latest diplomatic row, human rights accusation or whatever, they tend to use carefully crafted language to assert that China has done nothing wrong, it is acting according to the law and everyone else is a lying hypocrite who is violating China’s sovereignty by interfering in its internal affairs.

Over the last couple of years, HK officials have started sounding like that. It was as if Beijing’s Foreign Ministry staff were writing their responses – or at least giving them instruction on how to write them.

Over at Quartz, Mary Hui and Dan Kopf analyzed 165,000 HK press releases over the last ten years, and found that HK officials are indeed embracing CCP-speak.

The study serves not only as a textbook case of how a relatively benign government adopts authoritarian language, but also as a masterclass on how to spot authoritarian language and understand its purpose.

In the case of HK:

Broadly, the newly strident rhetoric appears to be aimed at several goals: reinforcing China’s absolute national sovereignty; refuting criticisms and justifying the government’s own actions; exerting control over civil society; and redefining concepts like human rights to align them with CCP ideology.

So, for example, “human rights” becomes defined as “legitimate rights” or “lawful rights”. And “press freedom” is guaranteed under the Basic Law … as long as you exercise that freedom lawfully and don’t print anything that violates this vaguely defined national security law.

Indeed, the HK definition of free speech now is, “You can say or write anything you want. We will totally arrest you if what you say or write is illegal, but yr totally free to say/write it first. You know, if that’s what yr into.”

Anyway, it’s worth the time to read. Who know, it might even apply to your own country.

Speak my language,

This is dF
defrog: (Default)

 

ITEM: The Great Hong Kong National Security crackdown continues, with the police arresting ten (10) people for “collusion with foreign forces”. Notably, one of them was Jimmy Lai, founder of Next Media and publisher of Apple Daily ( the last openly pro-democracy newspaper in HK), and someone who  has been on the Beijing hit list for a very long time.

 

So here’s some bloggery about that:

 

1. This is essentially about petty revenge. The HK govt, Beijing and the police hate Lai, and have wanted to punish him for a very long time. Lai has always been a media rabble-rouser, both in HK and Taiwan, and the CCP has always been a favorite target of his. He’s already been arrested for unlawful assembly and related charges, but that’s not enough for BJ – they want him (and people like him) in jail for the rest of his life.

 

2. No one knows what “collusion with foreign forces” means in this case – and it’s not certain we’ll ever find out – but we do know that Beijing’s definition of such things tends to be very loose. For example, last month the police arrested four kids on NSL charges of secession – where in this case the act of “secession” was literally sharing a pro-independence article on Facebook.

 

3. With people now convinced that this spells the death of press freedom in HK, at least one Beijing official is trying to spin this by claiming Apple Daily is not a newspaper but a political organization that just happens to print newspapers. So it doesn’t count as curbing press freedom, see?

 

In other words, you’re a media organization until Beijing decides you’re not a media organization but a rebel political group.

 

4. Also, the reassurances about press freedom aren’t that convincing when remembering the police didn’t just arrest Lai – they sent a hundred cops to raid the Apple Daily office for “evidence” – and then arbitrarily banned certain media from the press briefing.

 

The police made an attempt to explain it the following day:

 

“It depends on the past performance of those media — whether they behaved in a way that the police deemed unprofessional,” the police chief said. “Criteria include whether their reporting is objective, whether they have participated in actions other than reporting, whether they would obstruct officers from performing their duty or if they would pose danger to officers.”

 

Which isn’t helpful, but it does illustrate a few things: (1) Police chief Chris Tang has a list of media he does not like and will not cooperate with, (2) he clearly thinks press freedom should be limited to news outlets he personally deems worthy, and (3) if the govt ever decides to implement an accreditation system for journalists (which the police have openly advocated for some time), Tang already has a wish list of who he wants rejected.

 

This is, after all, the same police chief who is obsessed with the idea that some reporters who show up to cover the police  are not actual reporters but protesters disguised as reporters. Or something. I have no idea what he thinks these clandestine fake journalists (if they exist, and he’s never proven that they do) are up to. I suspect he doesn’t either because he’s just making it up to justify police violence against anyone wearing a press vest.

 

5. It’s also worth remembering the broader context in which this happened. Ever since the NSL was passed, press freedom in HK has been eroding one step at a time.

Rachel Cheung has compiled a list here. But the pattern is clear: the HK govt is working make it very difficult for foreign journalists to work here, and attempting to establish norms in which media is forced to self-censor or stick to stenography if they want to avoid an NSL rap. Loyalist papers like Ta Kung Pao will get access and exclusives because they can be counted on to toe the govt line, and even serve as cheerleader.

 

For everyone else, the Apple Daily raid and selective came across as theatre that was intended to send a clear message to all other media outlets: watch what you write, or you may be next.

 

That’s certainly how the local Foreign Correspondents Club is taking it. And, you know, they’re not wrong.

 

6. Still, it’s not all doom and gloom. For one thing, Apple Daily wasn’t shut down. It’s still in operation. Indeed, it went to press the very next day with a very defiant headline vowing to fight on despite govt oppression and an expanded print run of 550,000 copies (as opposed to the usual daily run of around 70,000 copies).

 

Result: as far as I know they sold every copy. And the company’s stock price jumped over 700% in two days.

 

Bet that annoyed the govt no end.

 

FULL DISCLOSURE: I bought two copies (see photo, above). Which technically means I could be arrested for  helping to fund collusion, should the police or Beijing decide to interpret it that way. But then they’d have to arrest 550,000 people, so it’s probably not worth the effort.

 

Meanwhile, a restaurant owned by one of Lai’s sons – who was also arrested as part of the same sweep – did awesome business yesterday.

 

Because this is how we protest in HK now. We can’t march, and even holding up blank signs in a shopping mall is illegal now – but we can find other ways to make our feelings known.

 

How do you like them apples,

 

This is dF

defrog: (Default)

Given what I’ve posted about Hong Kong recently regarding the national security law – and what you may have heard/read in the news – it probably sounds like HK has become a totalitarian police state where we’re all forced to worship Xi Jinping and Carrie Lam, we need police permission to do anything, and making any negative comment about Xi, Lam or the police will result in negative feedback – cyberbullying, police harassment, a blast of pepper spray in yr mug, re-education camps, etc.

 

And, you know, kind of.

 

To be honest it’s not quite that bad. Not yet.

 

To be clear, there is definitely a deliberate chilling of speech and a curtailing of speech-related liberties – banning slogans, prohibiting schoolchildren from singing that song, yanking books off library shelves, arresting kids for silently waving blank placards, press self-censorship, etc. And of the 10 people who have been arrested under the NSL to date, most were for speechcrime.

 

The chief exception is the guy who crashed his motor scooter into some cops – he’s been charged with terrorism, even though available video strongly indicates that it was accidental, although he was also carrying a “Liberate Hong Kong / Revolution Of Our Times” flag, which is considered secession under the same law. (Important clarification:  “trying to hit people with a motorbike” is not an act of terrorism or a violation of any other law when the police do it to protesters.)

 

So things aren’t good.

 

On the other hand, it’s worth mentioning that many people here do support the govt and the NSL – or at the very least aren’t bothered by it, whether it’s because of self-interest, business reasons, political apathy or an unshakeable belief that It Can't Happen Here – HK’s rule of law will keep the authorities from abusing their power.

 

As for everyone else, there’s been talk about how HK is “dead”, the protesters lost, and we’re resigned to either shutting our traps or fleeing the country while we still can. Game over.

 

But resistance isn’t dead.

 

You can read this piece from Tom Grundy, co-founder of Hong Kong Free press, who has vowed to go down swinging in terms of media coverage and refusing to self-censor (clearly distinguishing HKFP from other English language outlets, particularly the South China Morning Post, which employs some excellent reporters but also has editors who have loudly celebrated the NSL in editorials).

 

Meanwhile, indie bookstores like Bleak House Books have vowed to stay open and sell whatever they want until the police come and take them away.

 

There’s also this op-ed from frontline reporter Karen Cheung, who notes that really, HK has always been a tough place to live, but that we always adapt somehow.

 

… not everything has disappeared. The bookshop near my flat posted a message on social media: “Life goes on, resist fear.” A reporter I know tweeted, “I’ll just try my best to pretend this law doesn’t exist, keep calm, and carry on.”


I don’t want to downplay how terrifying the national security law is. People were arrested under that law on the first day, some of them just for carrying a flag bearing suddenly “outlawed” slogans. Courts can deny bail and hold secret trials. No one knows how to navigate this new reality.


Yet people are already coming up with cheeky, humorous ways of circumventing the new rules, resisting the temptation to be too obedient and give in to the chilling effect. We will continue to find defiance in unexpected places.

 

If nothing else, according to Jessie Pang at Reuters, you’ll find it in the young people who voted (and in some cases ran) in the primary. They know that if anything is going to change, it’s up to them. They’re under no illusions that they’ll win, but they know that it’s better to try and fail than to give up, just as they know that the Establishment pan-Demos still tend to see this as a rules-based scenario, and that you can beat Beijing by using its own rules against it. The trouble is that Beijing not only doesn't respect the rules, but rewrites them at will and interprets them randomly to suit its needs.

 

So, while we can’t realistically do much about the NSL and whatever abuses will inevitably occur (and arguably already are), we can adjust to this reality and resist as best we can. Yes, things are likely to get worse in the coming weeks, and eventually even the pro-gov/BJ supporters will find out the hard way that they are not exempt. But that doesn't mean we might as well give up and accept it. If we can't win in the streets or at the polls, we can always refuse to live in fear.

Because they want us to live in fear. So let’s not do that.

 

Have a beer with fear,

 

This is dF


defrog: (Default)

Hong Kong had its first – and possibly last – primary election over the weekend.


To explain briefly:

 

HK doesn't normally have primaries in the same manner as the US. But the pan-Democratic parties (which are legion) have never held a collective majority in in the Legislative Council (LegCo) – in part because the parties keep splitting into smaller factions, which ends up splitting the vote to the point where pro-Beijing parties tend to win.

 

So the pan-Demo organization People For Democracy organized a primary election to help the various parties work out which pan-Demo candidates have the best chance of winning and then back those candidates in the General Election in September. The Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute (PORI) – an offshoot of HK University which conducts public opinion polls – is collecting the data and tallying votes.

 

Another reason for doing this is that most pan-Demos are pretty sure that the upcoming LegCo election is their last chance to win a majority, not least because the govt has been looking for every excuse they can (often linked to last year’s protests) to disqualify pan-Demo candidates to ensure they don't win a majority.

 

Indeed, even though the primary is not against election rules, various HK govt officials (including, of course, Carrie Lam) have naturally said that all of this could potentially violate the new National Security Law. Their reasons? (1) it's cheating for the pan-Demos to figure out in advance which of their candidates have the best chance of winning and (2) it's a violation of the national security law for opposition parties who oppose govt policies to win a majority because opposing the govt is sedition. On the other hand, if the opposition parties agree to support everything the govt proposes, then that's perfectly legal. See?

 

[Additional note: these are the kind of arguments you get from people who have no idea how something works but think they do.]

 

It’s also notable that the night before the election, police raided PORI and seized some of their computers – supposedly for something unrelated to the election. Luckily, they didn’t take the computers with the election data on them.

 

Anyway, I voted. I don't think I'll go to jail for it, if only because 610,000 people voted. So I don’t think they have the capacity to arrest that many people at once. More than likely they’ll arrest the organizers if they decide to arrest anyone.

 

So, a brief Q&A:

 

1. Is 610,000 a good number?

 

Yes, in the sense that the PFD was expecting 170,000. Every one of those are verified voters.

 

2. Will it actually help the pan-Demos win a majority?

 

No idea, but it’s unlikely, if only because I fully expect the HK govt to arrest and/or disqualify the candidates who won the primary (all of whom, as it happens, are the younger and more blatantly anti-Beijing candidates rather than the moderate Establishment pan-Demos).

 

Also, it depends on whether the various pan-Demo factions really can unite behind a candidate that may not tick all their ideological boxes. (For the Americans, it’s kind of like convincing Sanders supporters to vote for Joe Biden.)

 

3. Could the govt just cancel the elections?

 

They could, though legally it’s tricky, and they’re trying to pass themselves off to the international community (especially investors) as a reasonable regime that totally believes in freedom and democracy despite beating up, tear-gassing and arresting people for advocating just that. So I think they’ll settle for rigging it in their favour.

 

4. Isn't the fact that they didn't send the police out to stop the primary a good sign?

 

Not really. As I said, the HK govt is desperately selling the narrative that the NSL all about freedom and democracy and the NSL was only necessary because a tiny group of violent separatist terrorists (trained and funded by mysterious foreign agencies) were trying to overthrow China by firebombing the streets of Hong Kong and sticking Post-it Notes all over the place. Beating the crap out of decidedly non-violent people who support (currently) legal political parties who are clearly not doing anything technically illegal creates the kind of optics that make that narrative a tough sell.

 

Yes, so does banning slogans, prohibiting schoolchildren from singing that song, yanking books off library shelves and arresting kids for silently waving blank placards. But then I never said their arguments make sense, and HK/BJ either don’t know or care that they don’t – their defense of the NSL, police brutality and censorship is essentially one big gaslighting exercise, and they seem convinced that if they repeat it enough times (despite all evidence to the contrary) the rest of the world will have no choice but to believe them. I mean, these are the same people who said that the press will have 100% press freedom under the NSL as long as they don’t write anything that violates the NSL.

 

Anyway, as I say, they’ll settle for arresting the organizers (likely starting with Benny Tai, who they absolutely hate) and disqualifying candidates.

 

Developing …

 

You choose, you lose,

 

This is dF

defrog: (Default)

Today marks the 23rd anniversary of the handover of Hong Kong from the UK to the PRC under the One Country Two Systems arrangement.

 

Alternatively, it’s Year 0 of the second handover to China in which One Country Two Systems has been changed to One Country Two Nearly Identical Systems.

 

Which means I might go to jail for posting this. Or not. Let’s see, shall we?

 

1. As expected, Beijing approved and enacted its national security law (NSL) for HK yesterday. Characteristically, they released the text of the national security law last night. In the middle of the night. In Chinese only. And only after the law was already in force.

 

Several people have already translated it into English. You can read this explainer if you like, or this more detailed translation.

 

Anyway, for the most part it's as bad as we suspected. And even where it doesn't sound so bad, there are two caveats: (1) the wording is intentionally vague to allow for very loose interpretation of what counts as an offense, and (2) the law basically says that Beijing has final say on what does and doesn't count, and that the law supersedes any HK law it might come into conflict with.

 

So for all intents and purposes all of the human rights violations that regularly happen in mainland China in the name of national security can now happen here.

 

Carrie Lam, for one, seems mighty pleased.

 

 

As well she should – Beijing has fixed the protest problem she created in the first place, and now she can go around blathering about how HK is harmonious and safe now that all political opposition has been suppressed.

 

2. The chilling effect is real – even before the details of the law was revealed, some people were taking cover. Which evidently was the point. Anyway, two of the opposition parties founded after the 2014 umbrella occupation have disbanded, some protesters are deleting their Twitter accounts, church leaders who opposed the NSL have deleted their posts, some “yellow economy” (pro-protest) restaurants have closed, and Chickeeduck is being evicted from a mall. And all that before we even knew what was in the law.

 

President Xi Jinping is smiling so hard right now his face may just freeze that way.

 

3. The HK police are also happy because why wouldn’t they be? They’ve already been greenlighted to do anything they want to anyone they don’t like.

 

4. Carrie Lam’s predecessor CY Leung is so happy he’s now offering bounties of up to HK$1 million for anyone who provides clues that aid the arrest of "national security law offenders", or to those who have information on "anyone who has fled the city".

 

Put another way, CY sees the NSL as his ticket to get revenge on every last pro-Democracy politician and activist who gave him crap while he was CE. (Indeed, a lot of his sideline commentary in the last year has included everything from the usual foreign conspiracy theories and saying the police should use even more violence on protesters to hoping the NSL would be retroactive to the point where anyone who staged a protest during his admin would get life in prison.)

 

5. Since 2003, we’ve typically marked July 1 with two activities: (1) a flag-raising ceremony that no one attends unless they’re paid to be there and (2) an all-purpose protest march covering whatever grievances the people have that year.

 

The latter is now illegal under the NSL, although police had already banned this year’s march under the COVID-19 social distancing rules that at this point exist solely for the purpose of enabling police to ban protests. Maybe now that they don’t need that excuse, they’ll drop the rules altogether?

 

Activists are determined to march anyway. It would be great if 2 million people (or more) showed up, though that’s unlikely. Anyway, the police have already prepared brand new warning flags for them.

 

 
[The running gag on Twitter is that protesters will be teargassed, beaten and arrested before they can finish reading the warning. Ha ha.]

6. As for what this all means for the protest movement, I suppose that depends on what happens next. There’s been a lot of chatter about how the protesters went too far and ended up accelerating the arrival of 2047 (the year our SAR status was to expire) and gained nothing. Others say the protests have worked in a broader sense because it not only exposed the corrupt violence inherent in the system and proved that the HK govt was always a Beijing puppet, but also forced the sort of crackdown needed to rally international pressure on Beijing, who frankly has been throwing its weight around a lot in recent years since Xi became President.

 

While we’re waiting for that to happen, I like to think that resistance in HK will take smaller, subtler forms – mini flash mob performances of the alt-national anthem, midnight graffiti, tiny acts of defiance to keep hope alive. But for now I think a lot of people will go silent, if only to regroup and figure out what to do next.

 

7. Since people have asked:

 

We are fine, and I don’t expect the current situation to impact us personally for the time being. The general wisdom (such as it is) is that the HK govt/Beijing will slap NSL vengeance on prominent opposition figures first – likely the ones who have already been arrested during the course of the protests. They’re the ones who will be prosecuted and jailed first to serve as examples to the rest of us. The objective is rule of fear, and the authorities will be just as happy if the average malcontents and dissenters either shut up or leave HK altogether – if only because jailing over 2 million people is time consuming, expensive and not the kind of thing you want to be doing when HK’s unemployment rate is as high as it is.

 

So for the near future, at least, I don’t think I have anything to worry about beyond having the occasional post deleted or flagged. Beyond that, who knows?

 

Developing (obviously) ….

 

Under the gun,

 

This is dF

EDITED TO ADD [3:30pm]: Well that didn't take long. The police have made their first arrest under the NSL. The offense: allegedly carrying a flag saying "Hong Kong Independence". 

defrog: (Default)

The reception to Beijing’s plan to slap a National Security Law (NSL) on Hong Kong in the name of “urgency” – and the HK police’s reaction to that reception – has been about what you’d expect.

 

Of course, not everyone is freaking out about the NSL. Quite a lot of people welcome it, and have been going around making very conspicuously public statements saying so. Every govt department head has been releasing statements supporting the law – each and every one of them verbatim copies of each other apart from the dept name and corresponding serial number. So you know they’re sincere.

 

Meanwhile, Beijing officials, HK govt officials and pro-Beijing editors and pundits have spent the last few days making public statements or publishing op-eds assuring everyone (especially the international community) that their fears are unfounded. There is nothing to worry about. All is well.

 

And so on.

 

Pretty much all of them boil down to the same basic points:

 

1. Everyone has national security laws, why can’t we?


2. The NSL will only apply to a tiny, miniscule minority of people. If you are not one of them, you have nothing to fear.


3. The NSL will bring peace and harmony to HK, and all this political turmoil will be a thing of the past, and we can get on with our lives and the economy can recover and everything will be awesome.

 

I’m not kidding about the last one. Here’s our first CE Tung Chee-hwa saying it. And here’s SCMP columnist Alex Lo calling the NSL a “masterstroke” that means “Hong Kong can now be depoliticised and get back to reviving its economy and improving people’s lives”.

 

Zounds! Imagine that. Years of polarized politics, frustration at the broken promises of universal suffrage, mistrust of the police, and fears of being “disappeared”, magically wiped away just like that by this one law.

 

“Well, why didn’t they say so earlier?” etc.

 

As you might imagine, I find their reassurances rather unreassuring. And one reason (of many) is that not a single one of these people has said exactly HOW the NSL will bring peace and harmony.

 

Seriously: how? I want one of these people to please spell out for me in detail how NSL will accomplish this in a way that isn't scary or alarming.

 

None have. I think I can guess why.

 

I’ve noticed that statements and op-eds opposing the NSL have gone into great detail as to why it’s a bad idea and means the end of One Country Two Systems, giving historical and contemporary context, with numerous examples of how “national security” could be (and already has been) abused in China and elsewhere to stifle and punish opposition.

 

See for example this column from Cliff Buddle, which ran in SCMP the same day Alex Lo’s column did. He makes a detailed and thoughtful analysis (that saves me a great deal of typing) explaining why there’s good reason to worry about the NSL, and to doubt Beijing’s claims that it will be very narrowly applied.

 

By contrast, Alex Lo’s column doesn’t back up his assertion at all. He doesn’t explain how the NSL will depoliticize HK, end the protest violence and go back to normal. It simply will. As if the entire problem all along was that we didn't have Draconian enough laws to deal with these punks throwing petrol bombs in the streets. Now that we’re going to have one, problem solved and we can all get along.

 

There are various reasons for the gaping plot hole in such declarations. For one thing, the people making them are under no obligation to defend their conclusions. It’s not like the law won’t passed if not enough people are convinced that it’s necessary, so why make an effort to back your argument?

 

For another, the point of these statements is really to be seen publicly declaring sworn loyalty to the new regime. These people know where the power lies, and like good Quislings they’re making sure the Powers That Be point the NSL crosshairs at someone else.

 

Also, at least for now, no one wants to say the quiet part out loud – the NSL will bring about peace and harmony by using the strong arm of radical law enforcement to terrify the opposition into silence and make examples of anyone who resists.

 

Voilà: peace and harmony.

 

This is what China does with its malcontents – this is what the HK govt and its supporters want for HK.

 

They'll say they don't, of course. And you know, I’m sure many of them imagine in their heads that we’ll still have the same freedoms (or at least they will, because they don't harbour verboten political beliefs, so same thing, really). And maybe some of them actually believe the NSL will be only used against the most violent radicals, and that once those people are dealt with, everyone will be right as rain.

 

In reality, it's a classic case of trading liberty for security without the slightest understanding just what the price of that security will be. Or maybe they do – and they’re okay with that as long as it’s someone else paying that price.

 

I wonder how they’ll feel if the price becomes higher than they expected, and where they might draw the line – midnight house raids? Disappearing journalists? Xinjiang-style re-education camps? Tiananmen 2.0?

 

Welp. We’ll find out.

 

The price of everything and the value of nothing,

 

This is dF


defrog: (onoes)

Thursday night, Beijing’s National People's Congress Standing Committee announced it will put forward proposals to enact national security legislation in Hong Kong that will officially make sedition, treason, foreign interference and terrorism crimes in the SAR – bypassing the HK government’s Legislative Council in the process.

 

By no coincidence, this comes after the HK govt, the HK police, pro-government politicians and Beijing liaison officials police have spent past few months consistently building up the narrative that the protest movement as secessionists and terrorists backed by foreign interference – which just happen to be the exact specific things this bill is targeting.

 

You see where this is going, yes?

 

Backgrounder: Under the Basic Law (the mini-constitution that governs Hong Kong under the One Country Two Systems arrangement that allows HK to operate separately from China for 50 years), Article 23 requires the HK govt to enact legislation covering “national security” issues such as sedition, treason and terrorism before its SAR status expires in 2047. This is, to say the least, thorny, because at the time the Basic Law was drafted, everyone knew what the Chinese govt counts as sedition and treason (i.e. simply saying something critical of the govt was equivalent to actively attempting to overthrow it), and that Beijing would naturally expect HK’s law to have similar criteria.

 

The HK govt first introduced an Article 23 bill in 2003. The response from the HK public was 500,000 people marching on the street to oppose it. The HK govt backed off and didn't bring the matter up again.

 

Now, in 2020, national security legislation is back, mainly because Beijing (and Carrie Lam, and her crew) have said that it’s the only way to put an end to the protests.

 

That’s not even remotely true, but it’s the only solution Beijing is interested in because that’s how they handle it on the mainland, and frankly they’re sick of our crap and want to out the fear of God into us. And with HK’s pro-Beijing majority in the Legislative Council not having a big enough majority to railroad legislation through locally, Beijing has evidently decided to bypass LegCo and enact national-security laws here by adding them to Annex III of the Basic Law. HK still has to pass its own national security law under Article 23, but in the meantime, the laws under Annex III will do nicely.

The vote is expected next week.


And so, what then?


I don't know. A lot depends on the details, but there’s no real reason to be optimistic when you loOk at the broader context in which all this is happening. Carrie Lam and her henchmen were just on TV telling us (and the world) that there’s nothing to worry about: we’re still a totally free and open society, and One Country Two Systems will remain completely intact after this bill is passed.


She said that about the extradition bill too.


I mean, these are the same people who just managed to get a long-running political satire program on RTHK taken off the air for the terrible crime of making fun of the police (by a comedian who used to be a police officer!), which to them is no different from actively encouraging people to hate the police. So no, I don't trust them to wield this new power responsibly or fairly.


Is it truly the end of One Country Two Systems?


It’s too soon to say definitively – I think it will continue to exist in the technical sense that HK will still be considered a semi-autonomous region that gets to plan its own economy and have its own version of democracy, etc. But it will be run the way Beijing tells them to run it – and Beijing will be a lot more proactive in doing just that. In terms of free speech, human rights and civil liberties, the HK system may be a separate system, but it will be a system nearly identical to the mainland system, rendering the term another meaningless catch-phrase for Beijing’s foreign ministry spokespeople and the CE to throw around when they respond to international criticism, like “hegemony” and “rule of law”.


How will protesters react?

There’s a march planned for Sunday that the police will almost certainly ban, and will beat up and arrest anyone who tries (as well as anyone who happens to be near anyone who tries, the media and innocent bystanders included). Beyond that, I don’t know. My sense is that the protest movement overall won’t give up – the fact that Beijing is resorting to this shows that the protests has truly rattled the CCP. So stopping now would be a waste of all the effort put in so far.


But they aren’t crazy about another year of sucking tear gas in nightly street fights with riot police either, not least because they know it’s a futile gesture anyway. I’ve heard they’re looking for alternative resistance action plans.

 

On the other hand, if they feel they truly have nothing to lose, maybe they’ll go out swinging. In which the police would be delighted to accommodate them.

 

Either way, it seems 2047 has indeed come early.

 

For more information:

 

Read this Vox explainer.

 

Read also this mildly hopeful commentary from Stephen Vines.

 

The other shoe,

 

This is dF

defrog: (onoes)
Meanwhile, apart from the District Council election, the other wild-card development in the HK protest saga is Trump signing the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act (HKHRDA), which means HK could lose its special trading status with the US if Congress decides HK and/or China is coming down too hard on protesters, free speech and liberty in general.

Protesters are thrilled. Beijing is the opposite of that.

Is it a game changer? I’m skeptical. Here’s why:

1. For a start, it’s technically redundant. As this lengthy but worthwhile post from Julian Ku at Lawfare explains, most of the provisions in the HKHRDA already exist in some form or other, such as visa protections for Hong Kong residents, targeted sanctions and the ability of Congress to revoke HK’s “special status” in terms of trade and investment.

The key difference is that the HKHRDA expands the criteria for “special status” re-evaluation and requires Congress to review it once a year. According to Ku, it’s worthwhile for that and the symbolism inherent in telling China that while Congress rarely agrees on anything, it’s so united on this issue that even Trump couldn’t afford to blow it off. Which brings us to:

2. To be honest, I’m surprised Trump signed it, because he clearly didn't want to. I’m pretty sure he would have preferred to use the threat of signing it as a negotiating tool in his trade war with China. I suspect the only reason he did sign is because Congress has the votes to override a veto and Trump didn’t want to give Nervous Nancy, Little Marco and Lyin’ Ted the satisfaction of beating him at something.

I’m 100% positive he didn’t do it because he cares about the people of HK. The clue is in his signing statement – notice who he mentions first, and “out of respect”. That should give you an idea of where his priorities lie.

3. The same goes for the GOP Congresspeople who were fronting the bill – especially McConnell, Rubio, Cruz et al. They’re mainly in it for the anti-China grandstanding. China has been and remains a favorite and easy target for Republicans who still fancy themselves as anti-Commie heroes and like to be seen bashing totalitarian dictatorships. (See also: the GOP’s war on Huawei.)

4. Consequently, any subsequent enforcement of the bill is inherently going to be a political decision.

This matters because Hongkongers see the bill first and foremost as an issue of justice and human rights specific to HK’s situation. For Congress (and again, for Republicans especially), it’s partly that, but it’s mainly a tool for achieving American foreign policy objectives regarding China and elsewhere.

Put simply, as this analysis from Lausan Collective argues, the law exists mainly to further America’s economic and geopolitical interests, which historically have typically been prioritized above human rights. That means enforcement is likely to be selective, circumstantial and ultimately self-serving. The HKHRDA might be good for HK at face value – but it comes at a cost that, on a macro level, could make things worse.

5. Which is why I cringe when local people declare Trump, Rubio, Cruz and McConnell heroes and saviors for standing with HK People™.

Granted, this is because I happen to believe Trump is a racist, sexist, corrupt, mentally unhinged dictator-wannabe, and the GOP is a mass of spineless sycophants enabling and encouraging him.

All that aside, I don’t believe Rubio, Cruz and McConnell really care about HK people except as some abstract representation of the general fight for freedom from Beijing oppression that they can use in a speech. Trump cares more about winning his trade war with China, and generally sees HK as an inconvenient but possibly useful negotiating tool.

In fact, I’m not convinced he even understands what’s going on in HK. This is after all the same guy who reckoned Xi could sort the whole thing out in one “personal meeting” with the protesters (who infamously have no leaders to speak of), and also recently said the only reason Xi hasn’t sent in the tanks yet is because he, Donald J Trump, personally told him not to, yr welcome.

6. So all up, I think the protesters celebrating the HKHRDA should be prepared for disappointment – at least if they’re depending solely on the US to be their champion to the point of producing results.

7. That said, some HK protest groups seem to understand this – which is why they’re now hoping to get other countries like Canada, Germany, Australia and the UK to pass similar measures on the reasonable grounds that neither Carrie Lam nor Beijing is likely to give in to pressure from the US alone, but if enough countries join in, they will be forced to rethink their approach.

(If nothing else, getting the UK to pass its own HKHRDA will put pressure on Lam and other govt leaders who have British passports that they might be banking on as escape hatches in case China finally brings the hammer down on HK.)

This makes sense as far as it goes, because I really don’t believe the HKHRDA on its own will move the needle much in terms of how Lam handles the protests from this point on. Piling on the pressure from other countries might – and if nothing else, other such laws might actually have some teeth to them.

In any case, it’s going to take time for Lam and/or Beijing to feel the heat. Until then, the beatings will continue until morale improves.

Just another bill,

This is dF
defrog: (onoes)
Previously on Senseless Acts of Bloggery:

[The protests are] expected to go on all summer long. […]

Update: they did. And they haven’t stopped. And they’ve gotten progressively worse.

Wikipedia can help you fill in the gaps, but suffice to say it’s gotten worse. Two unarmed protesters have been shot (neither fatally, but in both cases that was sheer luck), and a week ago protesters ended up trapped in Polytechnic University in a siege that came this close to becoming the Tiananmen 2.0 we’ve all been expecting.

Thankfully it didn’t.

It’s been quiet since then, mainly because this past Sunday was the District Council elections, and the protesters – wisely – stopped all activities for two strategic reasons: (1) the likelihood that the govt would use them as an excuse to cancel the elections, and (2) the likelihood that if the elections went ahead, the pro-Beijing (blue) candidates would get creamed by the pro-Democratic (yellow) candidates – hence the govt’s alleged interest in looking for any excuse to cancel the elections.

Indeed, the District Council elections were being touted by both sides as a de facto referendum on the 5 Demands and the current turmoil. And while I hate labelling general elections as de facto referendums on a specific issue, there’s little doubt that a lot of people were going to vote based on their feelings about the protests, even though the District Council doesn’t have much power to do anything about them – the DC really just exists to manage local issues and report them to LegCo. But if nothing else the elections were expected to serve as the strongest indicator of public sentiment about the situation.

And so they were.

1. Short version: The DC has 479 seats across 18 districts, of which 452 were up for grabs. When voting started, the pro-Beijing camp controlled all 18 districts and the vast majority of seats.

They now control one.

The pro-Democratic camp own the rest, and with 389 seats, they now have a much larger majority than the pro-Beijing camp had before the voting started.

2. Total voter turnout: almost 73%.

3. So, you know, that’s a pretty decisive message to CE Carrie Lam and her admin: we’re sick of tear gas and police brutality, neither of which is working and is actually making things worse, so you need to change gears and work out a political solution.

Predictably, her interpretation of that message is: “We’re sick of protesters, please stop them.” Hence her press conference in which she said (paraphrased), “Beijing doesn’t blame me for the results, and I’m not giving in to any more demands from protesters.” (The first part, I suspect, explains the second.)

4. And so nothing has changed. Which is no surprise. For one thing, a recent report claims she’s increasingly isolated herself in a Trump-like bubble of yes-men protecting her from reports of police brutality. Also, Lam didn’t listen when 2 million people marched against the extradition bill that started this sorry mess – why should she honor the results of an election just because her side lost?

5. Meanwhile, it's been fun watching Chinese state media contort themselves trying to explain the results after a couple of weeks urging HK’s “silent majority” to show support for the govt and the police. Most have resorted to the usual conspiracy theories: the CIA agents rigged the results, protesters threatened to beat up people if they voted blue, etc. Some simply declined to report the results: “There was a District Council election in HK today. Turnout was high. Now, sports.”

6. One other fun detail: On Monday, when we all woke up to find out the results, there was at least one incident of spontaneous champagne parties on the streets of Central celebrating the election results.

Which I mention just to point out that in the 23+ years I've lived here, I can't think of a single election in HKSAR history where people celebrated the result with champagne in the streets. Privately or at political party HQs, yes. On the streets, no.

I'm just saying.

7. What happens from here is anyone’s guess, as usual. Protesters have already released the protest activity schedule for the next month, and we can only presume that there will inevitably be violence as long as the police keep handling things as they have been. Lam has made her feelings clear that the beatings will continue until morale improves, regardless of whether it actually works.

This weekend will be an indicator of things to come. All I’m sure of for now is that the protesters are not going to leave it at this. Lam’s decision to ignore the concerns of 2 million people in June got us into this mess. Her decision to ignore the election results isn’t going to get us out of it.

Born to lose,

This is dF

BONUS TRACK: For those of you asking, "Wait, HK has elections? I thought the protesters were demanding democracy?"

We have elections, but not for everything. The District Council election is the only election where everyone can vote. For the Legislative Council, we can only directly elect 35 of 70 seats. For the chief executive, we have no say at all. This is what the protesters have been demanding when they call for universal suffrage – one person, one vote, for all elected offices.
defrog: (Default)
Some of you may have seen a news story of a million people protesting on the streets of Hong Kong over a proposed extradition bill.

Here's what that looked like (you'll need to go full-screen to get the full effect – trust me, it's worth it). 



There are good summaries here and here, but the gist of it is:
  • A Hong Kong resident is currently accused of murdering his girlfriend whilst in Taiwan, then fleeing back to HK to avoid prosecution.
  • Hong Kong currently has no extradition arrangement with Taiwan, and is proposing to amend its extradition law to fix that.
  • But to do that, it can’t just set up an extradition agreement with Taiwan – it has to include all of China because technically, HK is part of China, which also officially considers Taiwan to be part of China.
  • This would mean HK residents could be extradited to China.
  • At least 1.03 million HK citizens are concerned about that because we all know that (1) features of China’s judicial system include torture, forced confessions, and trumped up evidence, and (2) under China’s rule of law, making jokes about Xi Jinping counts as trying to overthrow the government.
Beijing-approved Chief Executive Carrie Lam – who has been pushing for the amendment – swears that (1) the amendment will only apply to major crimes committed in China like theft and murder, so Beijing will not be able to use the law to punish HK people for political speech that would be illegal on the mainland, (2) HK will have full control over which extradition requests are approved, and (3) HK courts will have the final word.

Opponents don’t really believe her. And there’s no reason they should.

1. For a start, in the past 22 years since the handover, numerous Beijing officials have made it perfectly clear – repeatedly – that when it comes to how the HK govt runs its affairs (especially when it comes to democratic election processes) it is Beijing who has the final say precisely because they own us – we’re part of China, our autonomy is not absolute, and don’t ever forget that.

2. Meanwhile, the HK govt has in the past blocked certain Chinese dissidents from entering the city, and recently refused to renew the visa of a foreign journalist – and denied him entry back into HK – because he moderated an event where the main speaker was a pro-independence activist (whose political party has been banned). The govt has always claimed these actions were not due to pressure from Beijing – but not a lot of people believe that.

3. Also, while theoretically you would have to be in China when your alleged crime took place, in reality China has been known to finesse that particular detail.

So when CE Lam says, “Don’t worry, we have the power to turn down any request that looks politically motivated,” it’s not particularly reassuring. Even if she’s sincere, it’s hard to imagine Beijing talking no for an answer, or CE Lam standing up to them if they pressure her to change her mind.

4. It’s even less reassuring when remembering that the last time HK had a protest anywhere near this size (2003), it was over a proposed National Security bill that would, among other things, “prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People's Government” – with Beijing of course having the final say on what counted as any of those things.

After the protest the bill was shelved, but Article 23 of the Basic Law (our mini-constitution) requires us to pass one sooner or later. And after the Occupy stunt of 2014 and the subsequent rise of the tiny pro-independence faction, some pro-Beijing officials have suggested we put that back on the table soon. You can guess who might be the first people or groups charged under that law.

So you can see why people aren’t feeling very reassured by CE Lam’s claims that It Can’t Happen Here and to just trust her that everything will be fine. Ultimately, it’s not so much that people don’t trust the bill – they don’t trust Beijing to adhere to the law’s safeguards or respect HK’s decisions on politically motivated cases. And they don’t trust CE Lam because (like all CEs) she was vetted and elected by 1200 electors approved by Beijing.

So … what happens now?

Well, for a start, CE Lam isn’t backing down. The extradition bill is due for a second and third reading tomorrow, and LegCo has been instructed to have a final vote by Thursday next week.

Meanwhile, another protest is being planned for tomorrow. Over 100 businesses – including some of the major banks in town – have publicly announced they will either close or adopt flexi-hours so that their employees can attend the protest. That right there should tell you how serious the opposition to this bill is.

In fact, pretty much no one apart from CE Lam, the pro-establishment parties and Beijing itself is in favour of the bill. Even Taiwan has said they don’t want HK to pass the bill just so they can prosecute the murder suspect – they would much rather have a one-off arrangement.

So, the big questions are:

1. Why is CE Lam hellbent on pushing this bill when she knows how immensely unpopular it is?
2. Has she considered what the reaction of the public and the business sector is going to be if it does pass?
3. Does she have a contingency plan to deal with that?

We’ll find out. But it’s hard to believe she doesn’t know how divisive this bill is, and that passing it is going to make things worse. Granted, it’s not like her re-election is at stake. But does she really want to risk serious social upheaval by ignoring all those concerns or pretending they don’t matter simply because she thinks she’s right? Does she really think passing this bill is so important that it's worth ripping the city apart? 

The only hope now is that LegCo votes against the bill – which isn’t likely since the pro-Beijing camp outnumbers the opposition by a pretty big margin. Maybe they’ll feel enough voter pressure to rethink their position. Maybe they won’t.

All I’m really sure of is that between now and the final vote, we’re in for an ugly week.

Into the aggro,

This is dF
defrog: (45 frog)
And so 2016 gets one more boot in with George Michael.

I have to confess, I’m one of the few people on the planet who wasn’t a big fan. Which is not to say I don’t think he was talented. He was a fine singer and a showman, and I can prove that with this video of him performing with Queen for a Freddie Mercury tribute/AIDS awareness fundraiser.



Sure, he’s no Freddie Mercury, but c’mon, no one was except Freddie. And in many respects Freddie was no George Michael.

That said, I was never really into Wham!, who I found to be a bit silly and pretty to be taken seriously. I’ll admit too that by the time I became aware of them, my musical tastes were more solidly in classic/heavy rock territory. And by the time George went solo, I was firmly in Punkville and turned off by Michael’s ubiquity. So … you know.

Now that I’m older and wiser (okay, older), I still can’t say I’m a fan, but it’s easier to see why Wham! were as big as they were, and why George ended up an even bigger pop star on his own. One thing I didn’t realize in the 80s was that Michael wasn’t just a pretty face being handed pro pop songs to sing – he wrote most of his own songs (both in Wham! and solo), and 30+ years later, his hits are still in circulation – one of them now being a staple Christmas song, albeit one that’s now going to have some extra emotional heft, seeing as how he passed on Christmas Day.

Anyway, here in HK he had his share of fans. And inevitably, one of the classic stories making the rounds here is the time that Wham! became the first Western pop group to play in mainland China.

It’s actually a fascinating story in terms of how they managed to land the gig (to include their manager screwing Queen out of the gig by portraying Freddie Mercury as kinda gay – hmmmm yes …) and how the audience had to be careful not to be seen having an unacceptably good time, etc.

Respect.

Guilty feet have got no rhythm,

This is dF
defrog: (Default)
I was out traveling the world last week, so I didn’t have time to comment on the news that D. Trump managed to create at least two diplomatic incidents with nuclear powers in one week – one with India and the other with China – and he’s not even actually POTUS yet.

I have time now. So:

I’ve been mildly amused by comments from people – even people who hate Trump – who don’t get what the big deal is over Trump phoning up Taiwan as though they were an independent sovereign country and not a part of China.

I’ve been hearing this one for years from Americans who don’t understand the One China Policy primarily because, for all intents and appearances, Taiwan is functionally separate from China – it has its own govt, its own economic system, its own army. It’s a separate damn country, why not just say so? Why are we appeasing a Damn Commie dictatorship by pretending something is real when it’s clearly not? Call a spade a spade! GIMME THE STRAIGHT TALK! POLITICAL CORRECTNESS SUCKS! AND BY THE WAY I’LL CALL ANYONE I DAMN WELL WANNA CALL AND WHO THE FUCK IS CHINA TO TELL ME WHO I CAN AND CAN’T TALK ON THE PHONE WITH WHENEVER I WANT THIS IS A FREE FUCKING COUNTRY AND CHINA CAN GO FUCK ITSELF IF IT DOESN’T LIKE IT AND WANTS TO LIVE IN ITS LITTLE PRETEND WORLD – 

I’m paraphrasing. More or less. But that’s the general gist.

And of course, all of this is technically true. The extent to which it matters depends on to the extent you think that diplomacy is an important component of international relations.  

You can argue that China lives in a little fantasy world where Taiwan never actually left China. One could also argue that the people who think we should call China openly on its bullshit live in their own fantasy world where there are no consequences for breaching established diplomatic protocols in a global economy – especially when dealing with countries who own nukes and who you owe $1.1 trillion.

For those of us who live in the real world, yes, diplomacy does matter in foreign relations – at least if you want to get anywhere near a negotiating table. Trump can talk all he wants about using the One China policy as a bargaining chip for a better trade deal – it won't do him much good if China refuses to talk to him out of sheer spite. 

This is not to say that the One China policy is sustainable, by the way. Foreign policy experts have been saying for awhile now that while the One China policy made diplomatic sense in 1979 (at which time the pro-China KMT party – which has always supported the idea that Taiwan is still technically part of China – had a solid and consistent grip on power), the democratic situation in Taiwan has shifted significantly enough that it’s becoming more and more difficult for everyone – even China – to maintain that particular fiction.

Foreign Policy has a good write-up on this. I recommend reading it. It was written before Trump was a nominee, but it illustrates the problem clearly. It’s a long-term play that will take creative diplomacy and finesse to pull off so that everyone benefits without losing face.

And that’s the problem, of course: Trump does not do finesse. He’s demonstrated repeatedly that the word arguably does not exist in his emotional vocabulary. He evidently plans to run America the way he runs his companies on TV – like a flamboyant tough-talking businessman. It’s possible he made/took the call with President Tsai without understanding the diplomatic brouhaha it would cause. It’s possible he didn’t care. Either way, he’s managed to antagonize the one country that rivals America as a superpower through sheer thoughtlessness and/or idiocy.  

And he’s not even actually POTUS yet.

FUN FACT: For the record, Taiwan’s president, Tsai Ing-wen, is chairwoman of the Democratic Progressive Party (which also took control of parliament in the election that she won). That’s the opposition party to the KMT that – very much unlike the KMT – has typically advocated stronger independence for Taiwan. Beijing, as you can imagine, HATES the DPP with a vengeance. So you can imagine how they felt about Trump having a friendly phoner with Tsai, regardless of who called who.

Hold the line,

This is dF 

defrog: (sars)
As some of you may know, I fly a lot. And one of things I do to kill time waiting for my flight is check out the airport bookstores. It’s rare I actually buy a book, since I usually carry one with me wherever I go. But I have been in situations where I needed one. So I like to visit the bookstores just so I can see what book I’d end up buying if I truly needed one.

I was in Hong Kong’s Chek Lap Kok airport last week for a flight to Jakarta, and I couldn't help noticing a lot of the bookshops seemed to be gone. There used to be two big ones and a bunch of smaller ones. From the check-in counter to the gate, I only saw one small kiosk, and I started to wonder, am I imagining things or did they really close down most of the bookshops?

They really did.

There are – or were – two main bookstore chains in Chek Lap Kok: Page One and Relay. According to the South China Morning Post, Page One is out, and Relay has been cut down to five small kiosks.

The official reason from the Airport Authority is “change in reading habit and advancement in technology” – in other words, most flyers read Kindles or watch videos or play games on their smartphones. (I don't, but then I'm not "most people".)

The unofficial reason (i.e. the unsubstantiated rumor) is that Page One was carrying some of the books that were connected to those disappearing booksellers – i.e. the books saying not so nice things about Xi Jinpeng. So Beijing wants HK to police its airport bookstores. Maybe.

There’s no proof, of course, and personally I doubt that was the reason. The leases did expire this month, and all bookstore chains are going through similar pain points when it comes to book sales. Page One said they bailed for business reasons, and given that they’ve closed other shops (even in their home base of Singapore, they closed their last bookstore a few years ago), it’s not hard to believe they’ve decided to give up on their airport stores.

Also, it’s worth mentioning that a new bookstore chain has been granted a contract to take over some of the vacated bookshop space – Chung Hwa, which is based in mainland China.

See what they did there?

Read all about it,

This is dF
defrog: (Default)
I am on my way to a conference somewhere. I get off the plane and I find myself in a driverless car on a muddy road. The BBC World Service is playing on the radio.

The ride is a bit nerve-wracking because there seems to be no hard rule about which side of the road to drive on, so oncoming traffic is a constant concern. The car is supposed to be smart enough to figure out the intentions of the other drivers, but it seems to me we're having a lot of close calls.

I eventually get to the hotel in one piece. Up to this point I haven't been sure about what country I'm in exactly, but upon arrival at the hotel, I find that I’m in mainland China somewhere. The hosts who meet me in the lobby claim we’re in Shenzhen, but I feel like I’ve traveled too far for that. Also, I can see that it has started snowing outside, which doesn’t happen in Shenzhen.

I am led through the lobby to the reception desk, but I get sidetracked and go out the back of the hotel to look around. The surrounding town is a mishmash of old and new buildings, the latter of which seem to be the usual tourist-trap places. The older buildings are more interesting – lots of square marble pillars with Chinese characters on them, as though someone carved them out of marble and glued them to the pillars.

After a lot of back and forth I get to my room, which is actually a series of interlocked rooms connected by a common anteroom. The doorways keep changing so you have to know a secret code to find the room you want.

And then I woke up.

Big trouble in little China,

This is dF
defrog: (Default)
Previously on Senseless Acts Of Bloggery:

ITEM: Hong Kong bookstore employees are disappearing.

Or at least five of them have. Four went missing in October last year. The fifth disappeared last week.

All five worked with the same bookstore – Causeway Bay Bookstore, which just happens to specialize in books that are banned in mainland China (but not HK) because they’re critical of the central govt, especially President Xi Jinping.

That was as of January 8, by which time one of them – Lee Bo – was said to be in China (but without his travel document) helping the police with “an investigation”.

Here’s what’s happened since then:

1. Lee Bo has met with his wife and written a couple of open letters telling HK to stop investigating his disappearance, he really is helping with an investigation and it’s not really a big deal anyway.

This week, Lee appeared on Chinese TV explaining how he got into China without his travel document:

"I was worried that upon reaching the mainland and taking part in the lawful investigation, and testifying against others, it would lead to them and their families getting angry with me and this would not be good for me and my family, so to guarantee our safety, I chose to be smuggled in," he said.

Lee also took the trouble to publicly renounce his UK citizenship – which may or may not have something to do with the fact that the UK government has expressed grave concerns over one its passport holders being abducted into China, which would be a breach of the Sino-British Joint Declaration on Hong Kong that defines the current “One Party, Two Systems” arrangement. By sheer coincidence, Beijing does not appreciate this insinuation. So it’s nice of Lee to voluntarily settle the issue for them with no coaching whatsoever.

2. Gui Minhai – who was in Thailand when he disappeared – later popped up on CCTV (China’s state broadcaster) making a tearful confession that he turned himself in to Chinese police after he killed someone in China while drunk-driving – 12 years ago. While a friend of Gui’s confirmed the drunk-driving incident really happened, a lot of people are finding it hard to believe he just decided to go turn himself in – and just two days after two of his associates had also vanished.

3. The other three – Lui Por, Cheung Chi-ping and Lam Wing-kee – turned up in jail in China. They’ve also appeared on TV confessing crimes of “illegal book-trading” – i.e. selling their books critical of Xi Jingpeng on the mainland. Also, Lam took the trouble to point out that, by the way, the allegations in the books were all completely untrue:

"They were downloaded from the Internet, and were pieced together from magazines. They have generated lots of rumours in society and brought a bad influence."

The three were set to be be released on bail sometime this week.

So.

As you might expect, few people outside of the Chinese govt are taking the TV confessions seriously, as China has a long history of making examples of critics via public confessions that seem strikingly tailored to back whatever specific points Beijing wants to make by arresting them.

In any case, unofficially (i.e. this is according to other sources, not the official police line), a narrative is starting to unfold: Gui Minhai allegedly set up a distribution outlet in Shenzhen to sell banned books in China. The other three in jail were allegedly involved somehow, and Lee Bo – who allegedly had no knowledge of any of this – was allegedly recruited to allegedly help investigate the case.

Allegedly.

There’s still plenty we don’t know yet, and what we do know seems dubious. And we may never know the whole story. There are three things we do know for sure:

1. Two of the four people who ended up in jail were not in mainland China when they disappeared. And we know Lee Bo somehow got into mainland China despite not having his travel document with him – possibly even volunteering to be abducted (which seems like an odd thing to agree to after working for a publishing company and bookstore highly critical of Beijing – to say nothing of giving up his British passport).

Which again raises the central question of the whole affair: how did the three of them who were outside of China suddenly end up there?

Because there’s only a few possible options there, and one of them is this: the Chinese police are kidnapping people who are not Chinese nationals that they want to put in jail.

Which is, needless to say, alarming.

2. The HK government is very unlikely to pursue the matter. The HK Police Commissioner has met with Lee Bo, and has said he doesn’t believe that Lee is telling the whole story, but with Lee unwilling to press charges or make any accusations and basically telling them that there is no case, the police don’t have any choice but to drop it.

So, as usual, it’s a case of two governments – both of which have gone out of their way to undermine HK public trust in them – saying, “Trust us, there’s nothing wrong here.”

3. Local delivery companies are a lot more nervous about shipping banned books to mainland China than they used to be. Which I'm sure is one of the desired results of all this, as far as Beijing is concerned.

Developing …

Would I lie to you,

This is dF
defrog: (sars)
ITEM: Hong Kong bookstore employees are disappearing.

Or at least five of them have. Four went missing in October last year. The fifth disappeared last week.

All five worked with the same bookstore – Causeway Bay Bookstore, which just happens to specialize in books that are banned in mainland China (but not HK) because they’re critical of the central govt, especially President Xi Jinping. In fact, the bookstore – which publishes its own books as well as carrying others – was about to publish a new book about Xi’s private life.

As you can imagine, the case has raised all kinds of eyebrows in HK. The idea that Beijing is enforcing mainland Chinese censorship laws (where criticizing the govt is no different from actively plotting to overthrow it) in Hong Kong, where they technically don’t apply, is not exactly a comforting one.

Of course, we don’t know for sure where the five have gone. The fifth one, Lee Bo, supposedly phoned his wife to say he’s in Shenzhen across the border “helping with an investigation”. But the permit card he needs to get into China is still at home, so it’s doubtful he went there voluntarily. And in any case, I doubt it’s a coincidence that all five are associated with the same company that just happens to be publishing books critical of Beijing – that also just happened to be popular with mainland tourists visiting HK. It’s unlikely that Chinese authorities are unaware of this.

That said, books like this have been around for ages. So the other question is: if this is some kind of quiet crackdown, why now? Possibly the Umbrella events and resulting political fallout – in which everyone found out that HK democracy will always be rigged in Beijing’s favor because that’s how it's supposed to be, kid – is a factor.

Meanwhile, it’s worth noting that local bookstore chain Page One – which also carried some of the same books – apparently pulled them from the shelves after the first four people disappeared.

Which I’m sure is just fine with Beijing authorities. In fact, it’s probably the reaction they were banking on.

Developing …

Book ‘em Danno,

This is dF

==============================

EDITED TO ADD [8 Jan]: Pro-Beijing HK legislator Ng Leung-sing has a theory: the five missing guys all went to China to hire some prostitutes for fun and got busted. 

Ng has no actual proof of this, but says he read it online, so he thought he'd share it. You know, to be helpful. 

He's since apologized. Lee Bo's wife has not accepted it. Meanwhile, local broadcaster TVB is in hot water for broadcasting Ng's remarks without bothering to verify them. 

Also, while Page One removed the books in question, other shops are still carrying them

Profile

defrog: (Default)
defrog

May 2025

S M T W T F S
     123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated May. 22nd, 2025 03:40 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios