MORE SENSELESS ACTS OF BLOGGERY

The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region turned 25 yesterday.

Chief executive Carrie Lam, who “decided” not to seek another term, is gone.

Replacing her is John Lee, a former cop who (as Secretary of Security) led the hardcore crackdown on the 2019 protests. He was personally selected by the CCP as their preferred candidate, and he ran unopposed in what we laughably call an “election” (in which the Election Committee – 1,461 elites vetted by Lee himself and approved by Beijing – are the only voters allowed – Lee won 99.4% of the vote, and the 0.6% are probably under investigation by now).

So you have an idea of how the next 25 years are going to go. To clarify, Lee’s term is only five years (and he can run for re-election, though that’s a rare thing in HK), but it’s a fair bet that Lee’s successors will run with whatever ball they’re handed – because it is after all Beijing’s ball, and that’s the nature of the gig.

Do I have thoughts? I do, though there’s too much to say and at the same time nothing much to say.

1. It’s probably worth starting with sharing some links, like where HK is now in terms of the national security law, press freedom, civil society, and in general. On the whole, it’s not good. Unless you happen to share the views of GovHK and the CCP (or accept their highly idiosyncratic definitions of One Country Two Systems, free speech, press freedom, universal suffrage, judicial indepencdence, etc –  in which case, yr probably enjoying yourself.

2. Here’s another link explaining how we got here – and it’s worth reading as a cautionary tale for other countries who are experiencing creeping authoritarianism right now. Simply put, it’s not an overnight thing – it’s a long game, years in the making. And you'd be surprised how many people will accept it as long as it works in their favor. 

3. Here’s a link reviewing Carrie Lam’s legacy and her role in taking a wrecking ball to HK’s freedoms, and her Beijing-directed zero-COVID policies that have decimated the economy.

4. And here’s one about John Lee and what we can expect from him.

5. The HKSAR 25^th Anniversary itself was somehow a perfect metaphor for where we are right now – the convention centre walled off for blocks around, most media banned from attending it (though they could cover it using govt-supplied video), and a typhoon poised to shut down the rest of the city. No fireworks, no gala event, no party, just lots and lots of Chinese flags everywhere. China President Xi Jinping came down to swear in Lee and make a big speech about HK’s prosperous future now that it’s been brought to heel and the pro-democracy camp in jail or in exile. Good times.

6. And so, what now? Likely more of the same, only more so – an expansion of the national security law to cover even more vaguely defined offenses against the state, a “fake news” law that is very likely to be used to keep the media in line and crack down on social media, the June 4 candlelight vigil permanently banned, book bans, and of course the usual official gaslighting: Hong Kong has lost none of its freedoms, the protests were funded and run by foreign forces out to overthrow China, HK was never a British colony, etc. To say nothing of the continued and accelerated blurring of boundaries as Hong Kong gets co-opted into the Greater Bay Area project.

Which is a drag, of course.

7. To answer the inevitable question (and one which now regularly appears when meeting local people I haven’t talked to for awhile) – “Are you planning to leave HK?” – the answer is: no. Not right now. I’ve lived here 26 years now, longer than I’ve lived anywhere else, so this is home. The one thing that would convince us to go back to the US is if my mom (who is 90, bless her) needs more looking after than my sister can provide on her own.

But apart from that, the political aspects don’t affect me too much right now. Perhaps they will later, especially with US-China relations deteriorating. I don’t feel in any real danger of being arrested, if only because GovHK isn’t interested in jailing literally everyone who says bad things about them – and that’s mainly because it’s logistically impossible. They know full well how much support the pro-Demo movement and the protesters had then (and have now). It scares them. So they’re hoping to make enough public examples of the high-profile ringleaders who have actual influence to encourage the rest of us to shut up.

My social media presence is modest and my follower numbers meagre. I think I’ll be fine. Perhaps that’s naïve. We’ll see.

Staying put,

This is dF

PRODUCTION NOTE: I wrote a version of this post back in 2008, inspired by this post by John Mark Ockerbloom, a digital library architect and planner at the University of Pennsylvania, on why it matters that we have a Banned Books Week.

And given current events, it seems prudent to update it. –Ed.

As you know, the GOP has been on a book-banning spree, and not just for the usual rationales (i.e. fear of naughty words, nipples and gay people, although these are still very much in play). Now it’s all about getting rid of books that teach that fascism and racism are bad, on the apparent fear that these books will make white people feel guilty about supporting either. Or something.

Anyway, nothing says “we’re not Nazis” than holding a book burning event, right?

The good news is that while efforts to ban books are on the rise, it’s still not as widespread as social media makes it look. At least not right now.

Also, at least some kids aren’t having it, and are going as far as to form Banned Book Clubs to read these books that Republicans are telling them they shouldn’t be reading. And various groups have been buying and sending copies of banned books to people who live in states where they’re being removed from libraries. Meanwhile, Art Spiegelman is going to see a boost in his royalty cheques thanks to the McMinn County School Board.

So, great.

However, this is usually where the GOP and their apologists like to claim that they’re not banning books because all of these books are still for sale and easily accessible via Amazon or whatever booksellers are still left. So all of the dithering over book banning is liberal schadenfreude propaganda to cancel Republicans, etc.

By perhaps no coincidence, this is the same argument that many of the same people use to justify defunding libraries completely in the name of fiscal responsibility. If you can’t ban books, you can at least close the libraries. And again, they say, there’s always Amazon et al.

In both cases, the “there’s always Amazon” argument represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what libraries are for. Neil Gaiman makes a better case for libraries here than I ever will, and part of it covers why forcing libraries to remove books to protect children is not only a bad idea, but unnecessary.

In short, a primary function of libraries is to foster a love of reading in kids. Not everyone can afford to buy books whenever they want to read one. Libraries ensure every kid can benefit from books, and that people of all ages have equal access to whatever books or other useful information and services libraries offer. And in order for this to work, libraries must be free to offer books that matter to readers of all ages.

Yes, libraries have to make editorial decisions because of limited budgets and shelf space. And yes, patrons of schools and libraries should have the freedom to question those decisions. But as Ockerbloom points out here:

… There’s a world of difference between saying “isn’t this more appropriate for the YA shelves than for the early readers section?” or “Would this title be a better fourth-grade book on this topic than the one currently being used?”, and insisting “None of our kids should be reading about this kind of thing!” when “this kind of thing” is already on the minds of those kids, or something that they should be thinking about.

This is the thing about library book bans – they ensure no one of any age can have access to it. The “just buy it on Amazon” meme is simply arguing that free speech should only be available to those who can pay for it. And again, it’s also beside the point. To paraphrase Ockerbloom, freedom of speech isn’t just about the freedom to write what matters to you, but also the freedom to read what matters to you: “An unread book, after all, has as little impact as an unpublished book.”

Meanwhile, it’s also worth pointing out that while none of this is really new, the current book ban trend is more insidious than the usual handwringing.

Apart from being more coordinated across various states, it’s also happening within the broader context of the current and broader white conservative mindset that they are losing the Great American Culture War against the Evil Gay Black Liberal Communist LGBTQA-CRT Horde, and the only way they can win now (and save America) is to take control of schools and universities – not just with book bans, but also with legislation that censors teachers and restructures curricula along right-wing ideological lines to ensure students are taught their ideology, which will also teach them how to view everyone else’s ideologies.

Which of course is a direct contradiction to the GOP’s stated opposition to Big Govt and Cancel Culture. Also, as a resident of Hong Kong – where book bans and control of education is very much a pillar of Beijing’s current effort to stamp out all dissent and turn us all into unquestioning CCP patriots whether we like it or not – I also find it grimly ironic that the GOP delights in criticizing China for what it’s doing to HK whilst simultaneously trying to employ similar tactics in America.

But if Trump taught us anything, it’s that authoritarianism doesn't have to be consistent, or even make sense – it just has to appear to empower you and your tribe at the expense of everyone you hate.

Anyway, book bans are silly, is what I’m saying.

Read me like a book,

This is dF

ITEM: Hong Kong has a new and improved election system that – we are assured – will result in more democracy than we’ve ever had before.

Here’s how RTHK put it on Twitter:

Which is about right.

To explain: the “reforms” were imposed on us by Beijing in response to the 2019 protests, the landslide victory of pro-Democracy candidates in the District Council elections at the end of that year, and the pro-Demo primary in 2020 that was part of their planned strategy to win a majority in LegCo for the first time in the LegCo elections in September that year.

Every single person who ran in that primary is now in jail for violating China’s national security. (No, really.)

Meanwhile, as there was a pretty good chance the pro-Demo strategy actually might have actually worked, the HK govt postponed the LegCo election for a year (citing COVID-19 as the official reason, of course), and Beijing decided our election system and our democracy in general needed fixing.

Well, they fixed it all right.

The details are here if you want them, but in the name of TL;DR, here’s an analogy:

Imagine that Congress had a total of 70 seats, only half of which (35) are directly elected by the people. The other half are elected by business sectors and special interests.

Imagine also that the POTUS (let’s say Trump, for example) is elected not by regular voters but an Electoral Committee of 1,200 electors controlled by the GOP, which gets final approval on who serves on the committee. The same committee also gets to decide who gets to run for POTUS.

That was our system until today.

Here’s the new system:

• Congress will be expanded to 90 seats, but you can only vote for 20 of them
• Of the remainder, 30 will be elected by business reps and the other 40 will be elected by the same Electoral Committee that elects the POTUS
• That committee (which is now 1,500 people, 1,000 of which are hand-picked and appointed by the GOP, the rest elected by approved pro-GOP corporations and interest groups) also gets final say on who gets to run for all 90 Congressional seats
• A new committee will vet all candidates to ensure they are “patriots”. They will be assisted by the national security police to make sure the candidates are not national security threats.
• Any candidate disqualified by the committee is subject to arrest by the national security police for violating the national security law
• Encouraging people to cast protest votes in any way shape or form (to include t-shirt slogans) is punishable by three years in prison, even though protest votes are not illegal.

 So, yes. That’s our democracy now.

CAVEAT: It’s an imperfect analogy in the sense that the HK isn’t a two party system. Rather, we have a number of parties divided into two ideological camps – pro-Beijing and pro-Democracy. The CCP does not operate as a political party in HK, but from this point on, only candidates (regardless of political party) who pledge patriotic loyalty to China and the CCP can run for office – which basically means anyone approved by the CCP to run for office in HK is by default CCP-adjacent, if not literally a party member.

Naturally, Carrie Lam and whatever LegCo members are left (as most pro-Democrat politicians are either disqualified, in jail or in exile) are selling it as a delightful, major improvement that it actually makes Hong Kong more democratic, because it ensures that all voices are represented. (To explain: Beijing’s idea of “representation” is that all points of view are welcome to be represented in government, so long as only pro-Beijing voices have majority control forever – and as long as all views come with a pledge of loyalty to the CCP.)

They’re also selling this in the TV PSAs as a matter of national security with a direct link to the 2019 protests. Essentially, this involves a rewrite of history that combines two separate elements – protest violence + rowdy scenes in LegCo by pan-Democrats with a penchant for theatre – as if all of this was one big violent separatist movement funded by Western govts to create anarchy, take over the govt and overthrow Beijing.

“See? It’s either this or TOTAL VIOLENT CHAOS! Which would you rather have?”

Which of course is 100% false. But this is the same govt that arrested 53 pro-Demos for attempting to legally win a LegCo majority and tells teenagers holding up blank placards in malls that they’re violating national security. So.

BONUS TRACK: Regarding the RTHK tweet, here’s a link about how RTHK (our local public broadcaster) is being slowly but surely transformed from the best and most trusted news source in the city to a govt propaganda mill. Their social media person (at least on the English language side) is apparently keen on going down swinging.

Voted off the island,

This is dF

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

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

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

What a year it’s been.

Not 2020 (although yes, that too) – I mean the last 12 months here in Hong Kong.

One year ago today, over 1 million people marched on the streets demanding the withdrawal of a proposed Extradition Law Amendment Bill (ELAB) that would allow Hong Kong citizens to be extradited to mainland China. Despite the fact that it was the largest turnout for a protest of any kind since 1989, the govt said no. And so the anti-ELAB movement began – and of course blossomed into something much, much bigger.

And one year later, where are we now?

Technically, the protests themselves tapered off after December 2019 for a number of reasons – COVID-19, of course, but I think it was also due to two key events: (1) the District Council elections, in which pro-democracy candidates took every district except one, and (2) the Battle of PolyU, which was so intense (and traumatic for most of the protesters there) that relatively few people fancy the prospect of a rematch.

Also, the police have taken advantage of the lull to formulate a more proactive strategy of ruthlessly shutting down protests before they can rev up into something bigger. All anti-govt protests are essentially considered illegal now, and disproportionate violence, mass arrests of innocent people and attacks on journalists are justified by the police force’s massive propaganda campaign portraying the protest movement in general as a foreign-funded terrorist campaign.

Which in itself is the justification Beijing is now using to impose a national security law on HK for the explicit purpose of enabling HK and Beijing to deal with protesters the same way Beijing deals with dissent of any kind – secret trials, forced confessions, re-education camps, basically everything China already does to Uighurs in Xinjiang. The NSL not only effectively kills off One Country Two Systems as a human-rights/democracy preservation mechanism (which was generally the point of it), it also changes the game in terms of the protests. It’s one thing to put pressure on the HK govt, which at least has a modicum of democracy and free speech. It’s quite another to do the same to a viciously totalitarian dictatorship that’s out to make a very clear point: we run this dump, we will always have the last word, and there’s not a damn thing you can do about it.

Sure, this was probably always true in the long term. But we thought we had more time before Beijing went for the nuclear option. Turns out not.

So the two big questions before us are:

1. What now?

That depends who you ask. This piece in SCMP – in which Jeffie Lam interviewed protesters about their next move – is somewhat gloomy. This piece from The Guardian reflects a more defiant tone.

But the general gist is this: overall the protest movement isn’t ready to give up yet – we’ve come too far and too much is at stake. Also, Beijing’s aggressiveness essentially proves the protesters were right all along about its true intentions and the HK govt’s complicity. But no one’s really sure what the next move should be.

One ray of hope is the upcoming LegCo elections in September, which could go the way of the District Council elections. Meanwhile, many business sectors have been setting up unions for the express purpose of organizing strikes to pressure the govt.

Still, Beijing and the HK govt undoubtedly have plans for this too. We can safely assume the HK govt will do what it can to rig the LegCo elections in its favour by disqualifying as many pro-democracy candidates as possible (and indeed, it may be no coincidence that the NSL is expected to be in force just before the election). As for the strikes, the NSL will probably be used to deal with those – Carrie Lam is certainly displeased with the idea.

As for the street protests, those will probably continue – indeed, there was one this evening in Central to mark the anniversary, which of course the police shut down quickly – but they’re not likely to happen at the frequency or scale of 2019. Hong Kong Civil Right Front is planning a major march on July 1 (a.k.a. Handover Day), and the massive defiance of a ban on the Tiananmen Square candlelight vigil was an encouraging sign. But for the most part, I think street protests will be relatively limited.

Still, there are other ways to resist besides massive street marches. We’ve also seen the return of “sing with you” flash-mob protests in malls where students show up to sing the alternate national anthem, which also tend to get shut down swiftly. But every little bit helps.

Stephen Vines points out here that the one thing we have going for us is that history is not on the side of autocracies. Sooner or later, they go too far once they believe in their own infallibility:

… all autocracies, especially those in the modern age, have feet of clay. Their reliance on oppression to retain their position is inflexible and belies the weakness inherent in a system that only has one way of clinging to power.

Put simply, autocracies generally don’t last. It may take decades, but inevitably that weakness can be exploited if you poke at it long enough. You just gotta keep poking.

So whatever form resistance takes, the important thing is to keep resisting. Size and scale don’t matter – what matters is to undermine their authority any way you can (peacefully, when possible).

Sing songs in malls; stage work strikes when you can; support businesses who support the cause; wear black t-shirts; document brutality and injustice where you see it; make art; be creative. Go underground if you have to, but don’t stop. The one thing Beijing and Carrie Lam want more than anything in this world is for us to sit down, shut up and obey. Do none of these things.

Resist,

This is dF

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

You know Hong Kong has got COVID-19 under control when the protest movement kicks back into gear.

Granted, it’s mostly just been people singing the unofficial anthem in malls. But that hasn’t stopped the police from treating them like terrorists about to blow up the place.

Anyway, there are several key differences between last year and this year.

Mary Hui at Quartz lists most of them here, but essentially:

1. Beijing has more aggressively stated its right (and its intention) to dictate affairs in HK, even though the Basic Law (our mini-constitution defining One Country Two Systems) says otherwise.

2. The police has been using social distancing restrictions to harass businesses that support the protest movement, and to arrest protesters.

3. They’ve also been busy arresting top pro-Democracy activists and legislators.

4. In fact, the police are generally much more aggressive now in squashing any potential protest. No applications have been approved, and if so much as five people gather somewhere to protest, the police send in vans full of riot police to dish out gratuitous violence, pepper spray and body searches, And that’s just for the media.

We’ll likely be seeing much more of #4 – the Independent Police Complaints Council has issued its investigative report on police brutality and general handling of protests, and generally found that the police could maybe have done a better job in a few specific situations, but otherwise, keep up the good work.

This wasn't unexpected – the IPCC isn’t as independent as the name makes it out to be, and has no legal powers to investigate most of the complaints beyond comparing the police version of events with the complainant’s accusations. And as the IPCC is mostly run by former cops, you can already guess which side they’re going to give more credence to  (hence one of the Five Demands™ being a truly independent inquiry into police brutality and corruption).

Carrie Lam's official response was also as expected – as far as she's concerned, the report shows the police have been exonerated, and Hong Kong's biggest problem is lying protesters besmirching the police with propaganda and fake news. Naturally, the solution is to stop protesters from spreading fake news. I think we know what that will involve.

The fact that she gave this response whilst standing in front of a huge backdrop saying “The Truth About Hong Kong” kind of says it all, really.

The injustice of it all is heartbreaking. For months we watched the police fire off endless rounds of tear gas, rubber bullets, real bullets, bean bag rounds, pepper rounds and pepper spray not only at the hardline protesters smashing up stuff, but anyone who got in their way, including journalists, first aid responders, social workers, innocent bystanders and legislators trying to broker peace. Less-lethal weapons are supposed to be used to deter imminent threats – HK police are as likely to use them as an exclamation point to assert their authority over you if you so much as look at them funny. They’ve done nothing to keep the peace and everything to ensure violent confrontation.

They’re doing it still. The video evidence of police brutality, irresponsibility and unprofessionalism is staggering. The govt has chosen to pretend it is “fake news” and propaganda spread by the protesters. Now, thanks to the IPCC report, the police have essentially been given a green light to do whatever they want to protesters and anyone who supports them. At most they risk a reprimand (which may be issued with a wink, for all we know).

What happens now?

We don't know. Given that the police have been actively running propaganda campaigns attempting to label the protest movement as a terrorist organization, now would be a good time for the protest movement to shift gears, disavow violence as much as possible and use other tools to resist. I was never a fan of the violent wing of the protest movement, even if they were mostly limiting the targets to property and riot police – partly because I generally oppose violence, but mainly because it plays into the hands of the govt and the police. They WANT the protesters to be violent so they can justify their disproportionately violent response. It plays into their “terrorist” narrative, and the best way to counter that right now is to take no action that could be used to feed that narrative. 

Unfortunately, it seems the govt has a plan to make sure the protest movement stays angry.

Remember how all of this started with the extradition bill that meant HK citizens who just happened to be critical of China could be whisked off to stand trial in China’s notorious judicial system? That bill is now dead, but the govt seems keen to pass new laws that seem almost designed to provoke the same kind of angry reactions as the extradition bill.

For example, the pro-Beijing DAB party is finalizing a bill that makes it a crime to criticize or mock China’s national anthem.

There’s also been talk about solving the problem of the police assaulting journalists by requiring journalists to be accredited by the govt. How would this solve that problem, you ask? I could explain the official reasons, but they would make no sense. Suffice to say the police excuse for assaulting journalists is that a few of them are allegedly protesters pretending to be journalists to escape capture. Which (1) may not even be true, and (2) even if it was, the police are basically arguing that if a suspected criminal hides in a crowd of 100 people and you don't know which one is him, it's in the interest of law and order to pepper-spray and beat up all 100 people to make sure you get him.

The govt will likely follow that up with the infamous Article 23 legislation intended to enact laws in HK against sedition and treason – with the likelihood that its definition of what counts as both will be identical to Beijing’s (i.e. any criticism of the govt whatsoever).

The fact the govt is pushing for all of this at a time when tensions are already sky-high suggests to me they're hoping the protest movement will be angry and desperate enough to do what they did last year – only this time, the police will be under no obligation or pressure to show restraint. Which I reckon is just fine with Beijing. They don’t really want to send in the PLA to shoot protesters and make examples of them – they’d much rather the HK police do that for them, if only for the sake of optics. And the current police chief seems keen on the idea.

So that’s what we have to look forward to in the coming months. The past few months have been mostly quiet, and it was the opportune time for the HK govt to try and find a peaceful way out of this. Turns out they don't want one. 

Cruel summer,

This is dF