Big Lychee, Various Sectors

Bloomberg reports that Chinese officials have summoned the US Hong Kong consul-general…

…and urged the US to immediately cease all interference in Hong Kong and Beijing’s internal affairs.

The meeting followed a March 26 security alert from the US consulate general warning that it is now a criminal offense for anyone, including US citizens, to refuse to provide police with passwords or decryption access for personal electronic devices.

“In addition, the Hong Kong government also has more authority to take and keep any personal devices, as evidence, that they claim are linked to national security offenses,” the alert said.

…The Hong Kong government also expressed “strong dissatisfaction with misleading information and sweepingly generalised descriptions” of the new rules by foreign organizations and media.

How is issuing advice to your own citizens ‘interfering’ in Hong Kong and Beijing’s internal affairs?

As for dissatisfaction about overseas media, here’s a long, highly wrought government complaint about commentary on the NatSec Law updates, expressing…

…strong dissatisfaction with the misleading information and sweepingly generalised descriptions by certain foreign organisations and politicians, anti-China organisations and media…

Which was swiftly followed by a WSJ editorial…

On Monday Hong Kong Chief Executive John Lee announced new national-security rules, effective immediately. Police can demand passwords from anyone suspected of violating the national-security law that outlaws dissent. They can also demand passwords from suspects’ interlocutors. And they can order family members, employers or anyone else who knows suspects’ passwords or decryption methods to provide them.

“A person is not excused from complying with the requirement on the ground that to do so” could “tend to incriminate the person” or would breach “an obligation as to secrecy” or “any other restrictions on the disclosure of information,” the new rules say.

Failure to comply is a crime punishable by up to a year in prison. Attorney-client privilege isn’t an excuse to refuse disclosing passwords. And once police make a demand, the subject must hand over the data and then seek a court order to make certain correspondence inadmissable at trial.

Watch for the Communist Party to use the new rule as another way to target the Hong Kong-based families of dissidents who live abroad. Parents may now be forced to choose between prison time and helping Hong Kong authorities fish for evidence to bring national-security charges against their children.

If police claim an employee is a suspect, they can now force an employer to provide full access to work accounts. Authorities can then trawl through phones and inboxes for correspondence or anything else.

In its weekly Monitor newsletter, HKFP offers some background on Hong Kong’s hazy book-banning…

Political titles have been quietly removed from the city’s library shelves since the Beijing-imposed national security law was passed in June 2020.

In 2021, HKFP reported that 29 books about the 1989 Tiananmen crackdown had been axed from libraries.

In 2023, local media reported that hundreds of titles had been pulled from libraries – most were related to democracy and protests in Hong Kong.

At the time, Chief Executive John Lee said the government had a duty to identify books with “bad ideologies.” “Books we are lending to the public are those recommended by the government,” he told the legislature.

But he said the public could still read them of their own accord and buy them at independent bookshops – a statement that may not hold today.

…Besides books disappearing from library shelves, bookstores appear to be exercising greater discretion in what books to stock.

…independent bookstores have spoken about the difficulty of navigating red lines, with some accused by Beijing-backed media of spreading “soft resistance.”

Last year, the House of Hong Kong Literature, a non-profit that promotes the city’s literary scene, halted its book fair, citing “factors beyond our control.”

On Wednesday, Secretary for Security Chris Tang evaded a question from a reporter at the Legislative Council about whether authorities planned to release a “banned book list.”

…pro-establishment lawmakers said it would be beneficial for the government to make clear what books are banned on national security grounds.

Lawmaker Junius Ho said authorities could take reference from the three-tier film classification system, under which movies are categorised as suitable for all ages, not suitable for young persons, and 18+ only.

The government could classify books as “banned,” “problematic but not banned,” and “a bit problematic,” he added.

There are no ‘non-problematic’ books, presumably.

The UK Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs’ six-monthly report on Hong Kong. Pretty much what you’d expect…

…we have continued to see developments that undermine Hong Kong’s political autonomy and pluralism. The Beijing-imposed National Security Law (NSL) continued to expand in scope and practice. Despite assurances that it would target only a “handful” of criminals, Hong Kong authorities made a further 69 arrests in 2025, including for displaying political slogans, peaceful protest and organising petitions.

The Hong Kong authorities also tried to silence criticism overseas. In July, they issued another round of arrest warrants and bounties, including those against members of the Hong Kong diaspora in the UK.

The Hong Kong government’s press statement. Also pretty much what you’d expect, but ratcheted up yet another notch on the mouth-frothing scale…

The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) strongly condemns and must resolutely refute the untruthful remarks, slanders and smears against various aspects of the HKSAR in the so-called six-monthly report on Hong Kong…

A spokesman for the HKSAR Government stressed, “The HKSAR Government strongly condemns and firmly rejects the UK’s attempt through a so-called six-monthly report to make misleading and irresponsible remarks about Hong Kong matters, distort facts and reverse right and wrong, wantonly smear the human rights and rule of law situation of Hong Kong and attempt to interfere in the HKSAR Government’s law-based governance by despicable political maneuvers. 

(For fans of such diatribes: an instant response to the so-called UK’s report from Legco.)

Is ‘must resolutely refute’ a new one? We need fresh ideas like this.

I’m in Australia for the next week or so. A few pics of Rooburgers or something on Twitter/Bluesky. maybe.

From HKFP…

The founder and three staff members of Hong Kong independent bookshop Book Punch have been released on bail after they were arrested by national security police over allegedly selling “seditious books.”

Mark Clifford, author of one of the ‘seditious’ works, writes in a WSJ op-ed…

Book Punch is a shop that hits above its weight. One of Hong Kong’s last independent bookstores, it has been harassed by the government for years. Owner Pong Yat-ming has been dragged into court for giving Spanish lessons and serving sake at a Japanese-themed event.

On Tuesday police charged Mr. Pong and three employees with selling seditious books, including “The Troublemaker,” my biography of Jimmy Lai. Under Hong Kong’s vague and sweeping national-security laws, that offense carries a penalty of up to seven years in prison. The defendants were released on bail Wednesday, but the store remains closed.

Can a jurisdiction that doesn’t want its citizens to read books or learn Spanish seriously call itself a global financial center? Financial centers need freedom—to speak, to debate, to discuss, to argue. Free speech in a modern economy is not a luxury. It’s needed for economic efficiency, price discovery, efficient financial markets and good policy.

Throwing booksellers in prison is a major stumble for any government interested in prosperity. Nobody understands that better than Mr. Lai, 78, who has spent decades fighting for Hong Kong’s freedom. In early February, a kangaroo court sentenced him to 20 years in prison for practicing journalism…

Now, along with hundreds of other political prisoners, Mr. Lai is behind bars. But as the example of Book Punch’s brave owner and staff shows, the spirit of freedom remains in Hong Kong’s DNA. Pro-democracy candidates have enjoyed great support in elections since the 1990s and did so well in 2019 that Beijing changed the electoral system to guarantee the election of more pro-Beijing candidates. Six years after forcing a repressive national-security law on Hong Kong, thin-skinned authorities have been fretting about “soft resistance.” Well, resistance doesn’t get much softer than books.

Referring to NatSec justice (no jury, hand-picked judges, 99% conviction rate, etc) as a ‘kangaroo court’ is presumably what upsets the authorities so much – it’s ‘vilification’, if not ‘incitement’. At the same time, Clifford is being generous in saying the new election rules guarantee ‘more’ pro-Beijing candidates, when results so far suggest the word ‘only’ would be more appropriate.

NatSec measures do have a tendency to produce bad PR for Hong Kong – almost as if the government is vilifying itself. A security alert from the US Consulate in Hong Kong…

It is now a criminal offense to refuse to give the Hong Kong police the passwords or decryption assistance to access all personal electronic devices including cellphones and laptops. This legal change applies to everyone, including U.S. citizens, in Hong Kong, arriving or just transiting Hong Kong International Airport. In addition, the Hong Kong government also has more authority to take and keep any personal devices, as evidence, that they claim are linked to national security offenses.

Authorities are now feeling the need to ‘clarify’ that the new updates to the NatSec Law do not mean cops can force you to hand over your phone on the street (RTHK, Standard).

A Joel Chan thread on the latest population figures in Hong Kong by region and district shows that the population of Hong Kong Island has fallen 7% since mid-2019, and that of Wanchai by 10.1%. 

Hong Kong Island’s population is just one-seventh of the whole city’s. Kowloon’s population has fallen 2.7% since mid-2019. But the New Territories – where the majority of the city’s people live – has risen by 3.2%, so the total population decline nets out at just 0.3%. 

Not sure how the government compiles such precise numbers, given that no full census has taken place in that period. But, if they’re accurate, you have to wonder what sort of impact the disappearance of a tenth of residents must have on a neighbourhood. (Or not. It’s not as if Wanchai seems any less crowded.)

Lingua Sinica report on the Hong Kong Newspaper Association’s annual Best Journalism Awards. The main winner: Ta Kung Pao…

…run by the PRC government’s Liaison Office in Hong Kong, took home 29 prizes. It was record for the group and the largest haul for any media outlet in this year’s competition … The result [offers] plaudits to a state-run outlet that has been on the front lines in attacks on independent journalists and institutions (including the Hong Kong Journalists Association)…

RTHK reports…

Officials are planning to turn a typhoon shelter in southern Hong Kong into a marina equipped with recreational facilities and residential housing in a bid to promote yacht tourism.

The Development Bureau on Wednesday said it expects to launch a tendering exercise next year to seek developers to construct the marina in the Aberdeen Typhoon Shelter expansion area.

In a paper submitted to Southern District Council, the authorities said the planned 11-hectare marina could offer 200 berths.

The other part of the proposal includes turning a 1.16-hectare site around Po Chong Wan into residential units as well as other facilities for services such as food and beverage and yacht maintenance “to make better use of the piece of land”.

…The shelter area is among three proposed locations outlined in the chief executive’s policy address to boost yacht tourism.

The other two are the former Lamma quarry area and the Hung Hom harbourfront.

Even assuming that Hong Kong needs ‘yacht tourism’ – do we really need three marinas? As for the housing, it will of course be of the luxury sort.

How is Mark Clifford’s book on Jimmy Lai ‘seditious’? The Standard quotes a source…

…The seized biography of Lai allegedly disregards facts by glorifying Lai’s actions in colluding with foreign forces to endanger national security, attacks Hong Kong’s judicial personnel, misrepresents the government’s detention arrangements for Lai, and deliberately vilifies Hong Kong and the mainland in an attempt to incite sedition among Hong Kong residents.

Have the authorities detected any evidence of the book inciting any sedition among Hong Kong residents? Is it criminal to ‘disregard facts’, ‘glorify’ someone’s actions, criticize judges or prisons, or ‘vilify’ places?

From HKFP…

Hong Kong independent bookseller Pong Yat-ming and three of his staff have reportedly been arrested on suspicion of selling seditious titles, including a biography of jailed media tycoon Jimmy Lai.

…Citing anonymous sources, the reports said police also raided Pong’s Sham Shui Po bookstore, Book Punch, and seized seditious publications, including Lai’s 2024 biography, The Troublemaker: How Jimmy Lai Became a Billionaire, Hong Kong’s Greatest Dissident, and China’s Most Feared Critic, written by Mark Clifford, a former director of Lai’s Next Digital media conglomerate.

Pong Yat-ming is the same bookseller charged with running an ‘unregistered school’ for hosting a Spanish class at his shop, after the Beijing-run newspaper Wen Wei Po accused him of ‘soft resistance’. Now this. Mark Clifford was at the Far Eastern Economic Review back in the day and later editor in chief of the Standard and the SCMP, has a PhD from HKU, was executive director of the Asia Business Council, and is author of several books on Asia. He is also president of the Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong. He discusses his book on Jimmy Lai in this 2025 video. An interview with him from two weeks ago is here.

Is selling the book illegal? Does it threaten the security of the People’s Republic of China? If so, how? Is it a crime to own a copy?

The latest ramping-up of NatSec laws reduces privacy rights and the right to silence. From HKFP…

Hong Kong has introduced a new offence requiring suspects in national security investigations to surrender their passwords – or face up to one year in jail.

…Under the new rules, police can require people under national security investigation to provide passwords or help decrypt their electronic devices. Failure to do so can be punished by up to one year behind bars and a HK$100,000 fine.

Providing a false or misleading statement can be punished by up to three years’ imprisonment and a fine of HK$500,000.

Police can also compel anyone believed to know of the password or the decryption method of a device under investigation to disclose such information. Similarly, those who own, possess, control, or have authorised access to a device, as well as current or former users, can be subject to such an order.

…The amendments also increased the maximum penalty for a “foreign agent” in Hong Kong who fails to disclose information sought by the authorities – from six months to one year in jail.

A foreign agent is defined as someone acting for a foreign government, political party, or certain international organisation in Hong Kong.

The BBC adds…

The new amendments also give customs officials the power to seize items that they deem to “have seditious intention”.

…While law enforcement officials in many parts of the world have the authority to demand access to electronic devices as part of criminal investigations, the NSL covers a sweeping range of vaguely defined offences from secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with external forces.

From the Standard…

Prominent Hong Kong commentator Lau Siu-kai said the latest revisions to Article 43 implementation rules under the National Security Law allow flexible enforcement to tackle growing electronic threats. 

The amendments empower the Chief Executive and the Committee for Safeguarding National Security to respond swiftly. 

Lau highlighted increasing acts using electronic communications to harm national security, often involving foreign forces through fund transfers, false information, online incitement and financial disruption attempts. 

As physical actions become difficult locally, hostile elements are shifting to digital channels to undermine central and HKSAR authority. He views the changes as closing legal gaps and enhancing deterrence.

Lau noted the revisions draw from National Security Law implementation experience, including the 43-person subversion case and Jimmy Lai’s case, both tied to external forces, plus lessons from the Hong Kong Alliance case to fix enforcement weaknesses. 

He linked the timing to persistent Western support for anti-China figures and pressure on Hong Kong, not recent Middle East events.

Some examples of loopholes would be interesting.

From Reuters…

Urania Chiu, a law lecturer in the UK researching Hong Kong, said the new provisions interfered with fundamental liberties, including the privacy ​of communication and the ​right to a fair ⁠trial.

“The sweeping powers given to law enforcement officers without any need for judicial authorisation are grossly disproportionate to any legitimate aim the bylaw purports to achieve,” ​Chiu said.

So no right to silence where passwords are concerned in NatSec cases. This on top of: no jury; special courts with government-picked judges and a 99% conviction rate; possible limits on which lawyer you choose to defend you; and a (so far unused) provision for secret trials.

Some international legal, tech and other companies already require employees to use burner phones or cleaned/empty laptops when visiting Hong Kong. No doubt more will now.

From the government’s press release…

Safeguarding national security is a continuous endeavour with no end point. 

It must have been a while since the SCMP had an interesting op-ed. For a decade or more, most of the paper’s opinion pieces have been churned out by one David Dodwell, whose columns are mainly known as a highly effective treatment for insomnia. So we should note a rare piece that contains a bold idea. Unfortunately, it is also stupid.

The basic thesis is: Singapore does x, therefore Hong Kong must do it too. X here being Formula 1 car racing…

For Hong Kong, introducing F1 would not only tap into the massive demand of more than 200 million motorsport fans in mainland China, but it would also drive synergy between the city’s sports and convention industries, further elevating Hong Kong’s brand value on a global stage.

The development of Hong Kong’s Northern Metropolis presents a timely opportunity to build an F1 circuit.

If he was really deranged, the author would propose a permanent dedicated race circuit. To his credit, he proposes incorporating a suitable design into the Northern Metropolis street layout. Numerous benefits would follow, such as cultivation of…

…a full spectrum of local professional motorsport talent, including racing drivers, engineers and event promoters. A dedicated racetrack would also support a wide range of automotive‑related commercial activities, helping to stimulate the growth of the local automotive industry and elevate it to international standards.

High-profile international sporting events can significantly enhance a city’s image and global appeal … amplify the economic impact of such mega-events, leveraging its global reach to attract international visitors and business activities … stimulate growth across sectors such as tourism, retail, hospitality and conventions, injecting fresh momentum into Hong Kong’s economy.

In other words, yet another scheme to cram millions more people into an already overcrowded city, in the name of attracting supposedly juicy revenues that – mysteriously – no ordinary residents ever get to see.

I would guess that the author is a fan of Formula 1. Absurd-looking vehicles whizzing round and round. Men in jackets plastered with sponsors’ logos standing around looking important. A weird fixation with changing car wheels very quickly. All the pointlessness of golf, but at 100 miles an hour, and extremely loud. (The one redeeming feature of car-racing is that occasionally there are huge pile-ups in which people get burned alive, which doesn’t happen in golf but probably should.)

The conclusion…

Through forward-thinking planning and cross-sector collaboration, Hong Kong has the potential to transform F1 into a catalyst for its urban branding and industrial transformation, achieving dual gains in economic benefits and global influence.

Sure.

I sympathize with anyone who tries to think up new directions for Hong Kong. One obvious edgy suggestion to give the economy a boost would be to turn the land system on its head. Pushing up land values by keeping homes in short supply generates easy revenue for the government, but represents a self-inflicted wound on the overall economy. Making the city cheaper would at least bolster competitiveness with (say) Shenzhen for existing productive businesses. 

Otherwise, Hong Kong’s whole purpose since 1842 has been to host activities that weren’t possible on the mainland. Its success relied on being different from the hinterland – like having dependable rule of law. Even insulated from the mainland. The official line now is that greater integration will bring more opportunities for prosperity. But what if actively erasing the city’s distinctiveness means removing advantages, leaving it with fewer niches, less scope for specialization? That might help explain the endless suggestions for desperate-sounding hubs and zones.

From HKFP…

Thursday marked the first day of the public hearing into the blaze, which killed 168 people and displaced thousands living in the Tai Po residential complex. It was the city’s deadliest fire in nearly eight decades.

The inquiry is expected to disclose photos, videos, documents, testimonies, and previously undisclosed internal communication records among the contractors responsible for a major repair work at the estate.

Senior Counsel Victor Dawes, the lead lawyer for the independent committee, said in his opening statement that “human errors” had contributed to the huge life loss.

…A clip showing workers smoking on the rooftop of one Wang Fuk Court building on November 26 was played during the hearing, with Dawes pointing out that residents had long complained about the issue to contractors and authorities.

And from a subsequent report…

The independent committee tasked with investigating the deadly Wang Fuk Court fire heard on Thursday that the Housing Bureau’s Independent Checking Unit (ICU) – the body that oversees government-subsidised housing in Hong Kong – had told Will Powers Architects about upcoming inspections at the housing estate, which had been undergoing major renovation since 2024.

Will Powers Architects, the consultant firm overseeing the renovation, then allegedly alerted Prestige Construction, the main contractor.

Executives from both firms were arrested on suspicion of corruption and manslaughter following the blaze that broke out on November 26. Authorities previously said they found non-fire-retardant netting at the Tai Po residential estate, which could have contributed to the rapid spread of the blaze.

Senior Counsel Victor Dawes, lead lawyer for the committee, called the ICU’s advance notices “deeply concerning.”

Where does ultimate responsibility lie? With sub-contracted construction workers breaking the rules by smoking? With the owners and managers of the company that won the renovation contract but failed to exercise oversight on smoking and flammable materials, or to listen to residents’ concerns? Or with the all-patriots executive-led government, to which residents complained, and which manages to (for example) closely monitor old folk making ‘seditious’ posts on Facebook? The answer must be: whichever of these three actors that has the most power. 

In the HK Alliance trial…

Appearing before a designated three-judge panel at the West Kowloon Law Courts on Tuesday, Lee explained that the Alliance advocated an end to one-party rule, as such a form of governance stood in opposition to democracy.

He also said that basic civil rights, including freedom of speech, assembly, and the press, must be granted in order for civil society to organise and thrive. Only then would society at large be able to consider democratisation, he added.

“The freedom that arises [from ending one-party rule] allows people to participate in society through their own independent groups and political organisations. If you can’t even speak up, how can you talk about democracy? One-party rule… is a very, very big obstacle to democracy,” Lee said.

“Once you have a civil society, be it the intellectuals, the students, workers, women, businesspeople, or farmers, they will be able to discuss what political system works best for China. There must be a foundation for discussion before they can enter the political system,” he added.

Judge Alex Lee then asked the activist whether he meant to say that the CCP should not be in power.

The defendant replied that he was opposed to one-party rule, not the CCP’s leadership. He believed the CCP could lead the nation if the people saw it fit, he added.

One problem with Hong Kong’s old-style pan-democrats is that they saw democracy as an ideal and an end in itself rather than a means to better governance. The CCP, meanwhile, is on a different wavelength. It does not want a civil society that ‘organizes and thrives’. Note what happened to volunteers collecting food and promoting a petition after the Tai Po fire, or to a bookshop hosting Spanish lessons. The whole point of a Leninist one-party system is to ensure there are no ‘independent groups and political organisations’ in which people can participate. 

It seems absurd that these are matters before a court, and people face prison terms as a result.

In the HK Alliance subversion trial, Lee Cheuk-yan…

…argued on Tuesday that calling for an end to “one-party dictatorship” in mainland China did not mean ousting the Communist Party from its leading role under the state’s constitutional framework.

“The Communist Party can hold power, but the people should be able to choose their government,” he said on the first day of his oral testimony at West Kowloon Court.

Lee also suggested that one-party rule contradicted the constitution’s preamble, which provides for “multiparty cooperation and political consultation” under the party’s leadership.

“It is our wish that by ending one-party dictatorship, people can fully exercise their rights under the constitution,” he added.

…Lee dismissed prosecutors’ contention that the alliance used “so-called democracy” as an excuse to vilify the party.

…Lee Cheuk-yan said police had never openly stated that the alliance was a threat to the country’s safety before the present case, or cited national security grounds in banning its annual vigils.

Ultimately, this all comes down to expression of an opinion. But National Security courts have government-picked judges, no jury, and a near 100% conviction rate.

Chow Hang-tung’s statement arguing for early acquittal in the HK Alliance trial. From Brian Kern’s intro…

It’s worth stressing that, having been in prison since September 2021, she has prepared her entire defense, including this statement, from inside of a prison cell, without the aid of a word processor or the internet.

…Ultimately, what Hang-tung is portraying is two almost entirely clashing world views. According to one, citizens truly are the masters of the nation and are without question free to discuss their government and constitute it as they see fit. According to the other, it is only a supreme power entirely above the law which has the authority to dictate to its subjects what is permissible to say and do in relation to matters of governance.

In this sense, it can be said that while Hang-tung’s statement is primarily intended to address the matter at hand in the trial, it can also be read as a “statement to history,” raising issues that get straight to the heart of the political status of Hong Kong as well as freedom and human rights.

…From a political and ethical perspective, Hang-tung is saying, Of course, citizens have the right to freedom of expression. This includes expression related to matters of governance. And not only that, they have the right to choose their own political leaders. So the whole premise of the prosecution’s case is absurd; in fact, it is a perversion of the rule of law.

The whole thing is worth reading, though she perhaps unnecessarily/unwisely strays into subjects like the CCP’s non-status in Hong Kong and its treatment of Uyghurs. From the conclusion…

(76) The prosecution’s entire case is riddled with holes and leaks everywhere. Regardless of what actions the defendant incited; what methods were involved; the nature and consequences of those actions; or the defendant’s intent, the prosecution either lacked any evidence or presented no coherent facts, merely jumping between the most convenient statements available at the moment. Even though I have analyzed the prosecution’s core accusation—assuming “ending one-party rule” equals “ending the leadership of the Communist Party”—the court can see that the prosecution has still failed to prove any element of a crime.

(77) Most importantly, whether it’s “ending one-party rule” or the prosecution’s use of “ending the leadership of the Communist Party,” that is a goal that every Chinese person has the right to pursue. The prosecution tried very hard to make this goal something completely unthinkable and impossible, but they simply couldn’t find any reasonable legal or evidentiary basis.

(78) Ultimately, the fact that the Party doesn’t want anyone to talk about ending one-party rule doesn’t mean the law doesn’t allow it. The prosecution has completely failed in proving that the law “doesn’t allow it.” Throughout the prosecution’s arguments, they have been constantly subtly changing the meaning to disguise the Party’s will as law. They have changed meaning to effect, opposition to violation, motive to intent, and even mainland law to Hong Kong law.

Convincing? The NatSec court didn’t think so and rejected the application for early acquittal, and that of Lee Cheuk-yan. The trial continues today.