Why the rush?

A special LegCo session for the second reading of the Article 23 bill.

SCMP has an ‘exclusive’ on why the bill’s consultation and legislative procedures have that ‘blink and you missed it’ feel…

Insiders said for Hong Kong authorities, a swift enactment of the bill was a calculated strategy to catch foreign powers off guard and thereby minimise the potential impact and duration of any punitive actions or smear campaigns against the city.

A decision to get the bill out of the way quickly was made to allow the government to address Hong Kong’s economic woes and jump-start recovery after the Covid-19 pandemic, they said. 

So which was it? To get it done before hostile foreign forces could complicate things? Or to enable us to ‘move forward’ and ‘focus on the economy’?  

…[Vice-Premier Ding Xuexiang] and Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office director Xia Baolong met delegates on several occasions during the two sessions. Their message was clear: speedy legislation would allow the city to concentrate on developing the economy.

…The “surprise element” to the fast-tracking of the bill was important, according to a pro-Beijing heavyweight, who said the tactic would catch foreign powers unprepared. Any decision to enact sanctions, for example, would take time to push through given their own countries’ packed agenda.

The 15 lawmakers sitting on the bills committee privately mocked themselves as “martyrs”, the politician said, referring to their “readiness” to face sanctions or other restrictions imposed by Western governments.

The ‘focus on the economy’ trope has been used by every post-1997 administration to try to divert attention from political controversy. The irony was that the controversies were rooted in public discontent over issues (typically to do with democratic reform) that could potentially have led to major improvements in government economic policy – thus obviating the need for the constant ‘we must focus’ thing. To put it another way, Article 23 is a hot potatonot least because of fears it could have a negative impact on the economy. (See also Mainland officials’ traditional mantra about Hong Kong being ‘an economic city, not a political city’.) 

The idea that Beijing wanted to pre-empt foreign pressure sounds far more plausible. The whole ‘national security’ fever is ultimately about perceived threats from foreign influences. 

But a simpler explanation would simply be that rushing Article 23 through shows – indeed just reflects – clearly who is in charge. The consultative and legislative procedures are formalities. But then…

…Fast-tracking without thorough scrutiny could cause residents to question the role of the legislature, said John Burns, honorary professor at the department of politics and public administration at HKU.

He said lawmakers did not sufficiently address concerns about the vague key terms of the bill. Instead, the focus centred on advocating harsher treatment for residents “potentially ensnared in the national security web”, he said.

Burns said residents might legitimately ask: “What, then, is the role of Legco overhauled by Beijing?”

The central government has implemented changes to Hong Kong’s political system to ensure only “patriots” hold office.

“Legco represents a narrow range of ‘official patriot’ opinion,” he said. “This is a dangerous position because the government needs broad support to govern effectively.”

The SCMP tries to conclude with a positive note…

…The passing of the law could mean the start of a real test of Hong Kong’s wisdom. Will plugging the security “loophole” propel the city towards economic prosperity, while preserving its freedoms and liberties, as repeatedly promised by the city’s leaders?

Business tycoon Allan Zeman said he agreed wholeheartedly with the assertion.

Posted in Blog | 4 Comments

Church won’t inform on NatSec sinners 

HKFP reports that Hong Kong’s Catholic authorities say the confidentiality of confession will not be affected by the Article 23 NatSec law, following…

Concerns over the impact of the legislation on religious practice [that] were raised during the four-week consultation period for the controversial legislation. According to a summary of public views compiled by the government, an unnamed person from the religious sector said many believers would seek spiritual counsel from clergy in private, during which they may express discontent towards the authorities.

The disclosure requirement under the proposed law would contradict the tradition and rules of religious secrecy, they said.

“The clergy may not have enough legal knowledge to judge whether what the believers express commits treason,” the government summary read.

Meanwhile, in a dark and dingy confessional at St Joseph’s Patriotic Roman Catholic Hub-Zone…

Me   Bless me father, for I have sinned. It has been five days weeks months years decades since my last confession, and these are my sins. Um… I read an old copy of Apple Daily

Priest   [Sharp intake of breath. Shocked silence.] I see. Go on, my son. Did you have any thoughts that might endanger national security?

Me    I’m afraid believe I might have incited myself.

Priest   [sighs heavily]

Me   You won’t tell anyone, right?

Priest   Well, this isn’t your normal theft, rape or murder. [Starts dialing number on phone.] Hello? Is that the National Security police? I’ve got another Apple Daily reader for you.

NatSec Police   [Inaudible]

Priest   Let me ask him. Were you sitting on the toilet at the time? [Slides camphor wood lattice partition open, glares accusingly.]

Me   Uh, oh yes, father. Absolutely.

Priest   Hmm. Yes it seems he was, Inspector. 

NatSec Police   [Inaudible but apparently disappointed]

Priest   Bless you. [Puts phone down.] You must destroy all treasonous reading materials, and say 900 Hail Marys.

Me   I was an altar boy back in the day.

Priest   Alright – 800 Hail Marys.

The July 1 storming of LegCo was a landmark event in terms of its brazenness and symbolism. Also for the fact that not many moderate pan-dem voices denounced it – as the graffiti said: ‘It is you who taught us that peaceful protest does not work’. And echoes of Taiwan’s Sunflower movement..

Now, four years and eight months later, 12 protesters are sentenced to 54-82 months in prison. A comment on Twitter…

Seven cops caught on camera beating a zip-tied protestor got 15–18 months; man who stabbed activist politician “Long Hair” with a metal chisel got 3 months; attacker of three at a Lennon Wall, incl a reporter who lost some lung and could’ve died if not hospitalized, got 45 months

Posted in Blog | 1 Comment

Article 23 bill zips through committee stage

The Article 23 bill overcomes legislative ‘hurdles’ without much trouble. 

Samuel Bickett on the amendments…

In a true demonstration of what it means to be a “rubber stamp legislature,” the Hong Kong LegCo-requested amendments to the Article 23 national security legislation do nothing to allay concerns, and in some cases make the bill even more repressive

For the “incitement of disaffection” offence, the Chief Executive can now designate private organization officials as public officers—effectively nationalizing private orgs for the purposes of this crime.

For the “espionage” crime of working with foreigners to publish a “false or misleading” statement, the new draft removes all elaboration on what “misleading” means—because apparently what this bill needed was *more* ambiguity about what speech is prohibited.

When a magistrate is considering allowing a detention extension (for up to 16 days), the earlier draft allowed bail or remand. Now the suspect *must* go to police custody. As someone who was tortured by police while detained myself, the reason for this change is obvious.

Whereas before a person had been given 6 months to report from abroad in response to an arrest warrant, under the revised draft the security secretary can impose bank account freezes and other measures from day 1…which can make it impossible to fly back to report. Brilliant.

Thus, the “legislative” process ends as expected, with the Security Bureau getting zero real pushback from legislators who will now pass the bill as requested. And while I’m sure the gov’t enjoyed this process, they’ve also slipped in a provision empowering the Chief Executive to legislate national security in the future without having to bother with pesky LegCo questions. So I wouldn’t expect the next round of national security measures to even have this minimal element of consultation.

So if I understand it correctly (amendments shown here), the government could in theory declare Cathay Pacific’s pilots’ union ‘public officials’, and then charge them with ‘incitement of disaffection’ for their incessant we-know-better-than-management whining

The tightening of ‘absconder’ measures is also interesting…

The amendments propose scrapping a six-month wait until authorities can designate a wanted individual as an absconder – a status which allows authorities to levy sanctions including cancelling their passports and banning anybody from providing them with funding.

It’s hard to believe the government amended its draft in response to spontaneous feedback from a legislature full of patriots who say what they’re told to say. Almost as if the authorities wanted all along to declare fleeing dissidents criminals the second they leave town. (Senior officials’ exhortations that such people come back and turn themselves in haven’t found many takers.) 

The US Congress China Commission on Article 23…

Given the zealous implementation of the HKNSL by the Hong Kong government and the further human rights abuses that will likely occur with the passage of Article 23 legislation, the best course of action for the Hong Kong government would be to withdraw the draft law completely and repeal the HKNSL – as eighteen U.N Members states have called on the PRC to do at the PRC’s January 2024 Universal Periodic Review at the U.N. Human Rights Council.

Unfortunately, we know that such a repeal is unlikely to happen. Since current members of the Hong Kong Legislative Council were vetted for political alignment with the PRC before assuming office,4 whatever law the Hong Kong government proposes will simply be rubber-stamped. It will likewise be vigorously enforced by the national security arms of the Hong Kong police force and the public prosecution office, as they try to justify their continued bureaucratic relevance, even after all political opposition has been snuffed out. 

An Asia Times op-ed on the Jimmy Lai trial…

Lai is accused of “conspiring to collude with foreign forces” under China’s national security law for the HKSAR and conspiring to “print, publish, sell, offer for sale, distribute, display and/or reproduce seditious publications” under the HKSAR’s sedition law. If convicted, Lai could be sentenced to life in prison.

On January 2, 2024, Lai pleaded not guilty to all charges. However, given how Hong Kong’s once-independent judicial system has operated since China promulgated the national security law in June 2020, Lai’s conviction is almost a foregone conclusion. The only real outstanding question about the show trial is the length of Lai’s prison sentence.

The author ‘taught at Hong Kong Baptist University from 1991-1992, served as the Hong Kong Trade Development Council’s assistant chief economist from 1994-1998…’

The Security Secretary blasts Ming Pao for…

…a “misleading” and “vicious” article subheading on an amendment that authorities introduced to the city’s domestic national security bill.

Secretary for Security Chris Tang Ping-keung took aim at Ming Pao as he spoke before the Legislative Council’s bills committee on Thursday, as a marathon review process for the Safeguarding National Security Bill went into its seventh day.

The minister’s remarks focused on a subheading in the article which said: “[The amendment] covers strengthening media management, four types of crimes [that can see offenders] sent to the mainland.”

Some other things…

The Hong Kong government launches a new body to promote patriotism…

Raistlin Lau, under secretary for culture, sports and tourism, said the Chinese Culture Promotion Office would enhance Hongkongers’ national identity and “cultural confidence.”

“[The Chinese Communist Party] General Secretary Xi Jinping provided us with a clear direction of work in the 19th Party Congress report,” Lau said in Cantonese, adding that Xi had urged everyone to “uphold cultural and historical confidence” and “ensure the creative transformation and innovative development of great Chinese traditional culture.”

…Lau said the office would introduce a training programme for teachers on Chinese history, heritage, art and technology developments.

It would also design “teaching and learning” activities for teachers and students, including a project entitled “Comprehensive History of China” – an exhibition series and corresponding activities showcasing the nation’s history from the Xia, Shang and Zhou dynasties to contemporary times.

(The Xia dynasty – supposedly founded in 2100 BC – is essentially mythological, on a par with Atlantis or King Arthur.)

Lame Compromise of the Week Award goes to the bureaucrats who planned to keep the Hong Kong stock exchange open during bad weather, but semi-backtracked in the face of opposition from small brokerages (the same outfits who insist on a midday break in trading so they can have lunch). The market will now stay open during a number 8 signal, but close for number 9 or 10.

Interesting map showing countries that have territorial disputes with China. (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, Vietnam, India and Bhutan – plus possibly Nepal. Maybe Russia and Mongolia some day.)

Posted in Blog | 9 Comments

How to accumulate wealth by being poor

One of those weird Hong Kong things: the soon-to-be college graduate who puts his/her name down for a public rental housing unit. The waiting list currently stretches out for nearly six years, and the applicant must get a low-paying job – in McDonalds, say – throughout that time in order to qualify as poor enough for the eventual apartment.

Sounds nuts. As the Housing Secretary points out, these young graduates are sacrificing their first steps up the career ladder.

But, unless they are confident of getting a really high-paying job, their calculations are perfectly rational in the context of the government’s genius land/revenue policies. Once they leave their parents’ home for the subsidized apartment, they will be paying maybe HK$2,500 a month in rent. In the private rental market, they would need to pay maybe four or five times that much for a similar-size flat in a similarly inconvenient location. (As for buying – the average home in Hong Kong costs around 18 times median income.) 

Now free to earn more, they can look forward to decades of pocketing HK$10,000 a month they wouldn’t otherwise have. If they save it, they can be sitting on a couple of million bucks by the time they’re in their 40s. Even if the government evicts them for being too rich by that stage, it would have been well worth it.

Posted in Blog | 5 Comments

Greater Bay Area opportunities found!

A Bloomberg story

Hong Kong’s third-largest supermarket chain U Select, run by state-owned conglomerate China Resources Holdings Co., has almost halved its network in less than a year as the city’s retailers struggle with economic headwinds and residents flock across the border for cheaper shopping.

…Sales at Hong Kong’s supermarkets plunged 14% year-over-year in January and have been in decline for 18 consecutive months, the longest stretch since record-keeping began in October 2005, according to government statistics.

…Hong Kong travel agencies even offer package tours including membership cards and hours of shopping at Costco and Sam’s Club in nearby mainland Chinese cities. Neither has a branch in Hong Kong, where space is limited, rents are high and the market is dominated by local giants.

Whatever the exact reasons for U Select’s downsizing, a lot of stores and restaurants are having a hard time in Hong Kong these days. Some never recovered from Covid, and others have lost customers to NatSec-spurred emigration. And then there’s the Shenzhen factor. 

For years, Carrie Lam, CY Leung, John Lee and others have implored Hong Kong people to ‘seize Greater Bay Area opportunities’. Meanwhile, governments on both sides built faster rail connections and more, bigger, faster immigration checkpoints, with more coming. Now, for many residents of the New Territories, Shenzhen is as quick and easy to get to as Causeway Bay or TST. And the Yuan has weakened. Obviously, people will ‘seize opportunities’ to save money by crossing the border where shopping, dining and ‘night vibes’ are half the price. 

Did Hong Kong bureaucrats – who are petrified of falling land valuations – think ‘integration’ through? If you make the border more porous, what will keep Hong Kong retail prices double or treble those in the rest of the Greater Pearl River Delta? What will keep commercial rents here around five times higher than those a few miles north in Shenzhen (per another recent Bloomberg article)? A narrowing of the price gap will be inevitable as consumers vote with their wallets.

Remember Ross Perot’s ‘giant sucking sound’? 

This doesn’t factor in any decline in the ‘Hong Kong premium’ that people and groups are/were willing to pay to be in a place with freedom and rule of law. Can you differentiate and integrate at the same time? As a little reminder: the government complains about a British newspaper saying Hongkongers could be jailed for having old newspapers. The fact is…

The government also said only individuals who possess a publication that has a seditious intention, without a reasonable excuse, would be deemed to have committed the offence, according to the proposed national security legislation under Article 23 of the Basic Law.

“Whether a publication has a seditious intention will have to be determined after all relevant circumstances are taken into consideration, including the context and purpose of the publication. Relevant provisions of the [national security bill] also stipulate circumstances that do not constitute a seditious intention,” the spokesperson said.

“As regards the offence of possessing a publication with a seditious intention, the prosecution has to prove that the defendant possesses the publication concerned without reasonable excuse before the defendant may be convicted by the court. It is not possible for a person who does not know that the publication concerned has a seditious intention to be convicted.”

And as Andy Li – currently held at a psychiatric facility – starts to give evidence, Asia Times offers a background on the Jimmy Lai trial…

Lai is accused of “conspiring to collude with foreign forces” under China’s national security law for the HKSAR and conspiring to “print, publish, sell, offer for sale, distribute, display and/or reproduce seditious publications” under the HKSAR’s sedition law. If convicted, Lai could be sentenced to life in prison.

On January 2, 2024, Lai pleaded not guilty to all charges. However, given how Hong Kong’s once-independent judicial system has operated since China promulgated the national security law in June 2020, Lai’s conviction is almost a foregone conclusion. The only real outstanding question about the show trial is the length of Lai’s prison sentence.

The author ‘taught at Hong Kong Baptist University from 1991-1992 [and] served as the Hong Kong Trade Development Council’s assistant chief economist from 1994-1998…’

Posted in Blog | 7 Comments

Neither LegCo nor priests what they used to be

Security Secretary Chris Tang answers questions about ‘absconders’ – a major bug-bear of the NatSec system. Under the Article 23 NatSec law, the authorities will cancel travel documents and (it seems) professional qualifications after a six-month period. If an absconder’s parents withdraw their own cash in Hong Kong and fly overseas to deliver it to him/her, they could get seven years in prison…

At a Legco bills committee meeting, lawmakers said the period is too long, with DAB chairman Gary Chan saying that endangering national security is “something worse than murder and arson”.  

The Standard adds

Former security minister, now New People’s Party lawmaker Lai Tung-kwok, as well as Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong chairman Gary Chan Hak-kan said the administration is “too kind” to only define suspects as “absconded” six months after a warrant is issued, as many fugitives have bad-mouthed Hong Kong after leaving the SAR.

Election Committee sector lawmaker Peter Koon Ho-ming said: “I am a priest, but government officials seem to have even more mercy than me.”

In response, Tang said: “If even the priest said so, I will consider it more seriously.”

That’s the same Koon from yesterday who called Apple Daily a ‘lousy newspaper’; also of Chan Tong-kai Taiwan murder suspect/extradition bill fame. From the SCMP in 2017

In the eyes of his critics, Reverend Peter Koon Ho-ming is an outspoken cleric who has gladly embraced the Communist Party as if it is a benevolent master over Hong Kong.

But the 51-year-old provincial secretary general of the local Anglican church said his detractors have it all wrong. Not only were his uncles purged during the Cultural Revolution in the 1960s, Koon said, he wept and felt betrayed as he saw the Union flag come down on June 30, 1997 – the night the British government handed the city over to Chinese leadership.

But seems he got over it.

Speaking of the ‘will I be imprisoned for having an old newspaper?’ question, ExCo member Ronny says

“If you keep a copy at home as a memento and read it in the loo in your free time, it proves that you do not have a mens rea [an intention to commit an offence],” Tong told a radio show on Monday.

“But if you show it to people visiting your place from time to time and say ‘It is different now. What was said before is true’, then you may be committing an offence with seditious intention as you are using it to achieve subversion or other unlawful purposes.”

Store it in the loo – keep a lid on it.

Posted in Blog | 17 Comments

Public consultation, 1st and 2nd readings over already

Full text of the ‘Safeguarding National Security’ Bill. A full round-up from HKFP

Among other things: life sentences for treason, insurrection and sabotage; a maximum 10-year sentence for sedition; possible extended detention without charge for NatSec suspects; powers to limit NatSec suspects’ right to a lawyer; possible secret trials; vague definitions of such things as ‘state secrets’; and possible bans on organizations involved in ‘foreign interference’.

The authorities are pushing the claim that all this is equivalent to free countries’ national-security laws. But – for example – in such jurisdictions sedition cannot apply to mere words (if the offense exists at all), extended detention and secret trials are reserved for rare cases of terrorism or espionage, and governments don’t accuse overseas critics of ‘interference’ in frequent press statements.

A Diplomat article says

It’s widely seen as the latest step in a crackdown on political opposition that began after the semi-autonomous Chinese city was rocked by violent pro-democracy protests in 2019. Since then, the authorities have crushed the city’s once-vibrant political culture. 

…Hong Kong leader John Lee has urged legislators to push the Safeguarding National Security Bill through “at full speed,” and lawmakers began debate hours after the bill was released publicly. It’s expected to pass easily, possibly in weeks, in a legislature packed with Beijing loyalists following an electoral overhaul.

…The bill allows prosecutions for acts committed anywhere in the world for most of its offenses.

…It defined national security as a status in which the state’s political regime and sovereignty are relatively free from danger and threats, so are the welfare of the people and the state’s economic and social development among other “major interests.”

The bottom line is that Article 23 brings Hong Kong closer to Mainland levels of control. If you want to say ‘1 Country, Two Systems’ is still intact, you could point out that the city still lacks a ‘picking arguments and trouble’ catch-all charge, overt Internet censorship and broad measures against fake news. But there is more uncertainty.

Kevin Yam says

[Restricted right to legal representation] is a clear breach of the right to legal representation of one’s choice under Article 35 of #HongKong Basic Law.

But would an HK court strike this down if anyone still dares to challenge it? Don’t count on it.

From HKFP

For an economist working for an international bank, the biggest risk “is that increasingly sometimes you don’t really know where the red line is”.

Banks, firms and investors regularly rely on research, economic data and due diligence reports which could fall under the purview of “state secrets”.

The economist, who declined to be named for fear of repercussions, told AFP there could be a situation where a published analysis would affect investors’ sentiment in Hong Kong.

“Will they (the authorities) come back to me?” he questioned. “Is (the report) a threat to so-called economic security?”

University World News on the impact on academia

Several Hong Kong-based academics approached by University World News said the draft law was “too sensitive” to criticise publicly.

Privately, they said it will have a dramatic effect on universities’ open culture. They said the crimes are defined so broadly in the government’s consultation document released last month that it is unclear where the legal boundaries lie.

Reg asks: would late Wuhan Covid whistleblower Li Wenliang have been guilty of disclosure of state secrets under Article 23? Apparently, he should have taken ‘reasonable steps’ first. (For a reminder of how secrecy caused the Covid outbreak, check out this recent HKFP op-ed.)

One additional item of weirdness – some old newspapers might now be illegal

Lawmaker Peter Koon Ho-ming said residents saving old copies of Apple Daily were worried and wondered if they had to dispose of them.

…“Apple Daily is absolutely seditious and some people feel like saving a copy or two at home to keep a record of such a lousy newspaper,” Koon told the Legco meeting.

“Does that make it possession of a seditious publication?”

…Secretary for Security Chris Tang Ping-keung said a collector of old Apple Daily copies [he didn’t mention the paper by name] might need to invoke the reasonable excuse clause in the law as a defence.

“[If] one has kept that publication for a long time without knowing it is still there, and there is no purpose of using it for incitement, I believe this can be a reasonable excuse,” he said.

So if you know you have a few old Apple Dailys in your souvenir box, you’re committing a crime? (What about archives held by media groups or academics?) Especially worrying since the Article 23 bill also removes suspended sentences for sedition. The SCMP adds…

Professor Simon Young Ngai-man, a legal expert at the University of Hong Kong, said it was troubling that those convicted of sedition, such as for possessing seditious publication, would be deprived of suspended sentences.

“One can imagine some very trivial cases that could warrant a suspended sentence. The options now will be probation or community service order at one extreme and jail at the other,” Young said.

(RTHK report.)

Mike Rowse says all will be OK if only Hong Kong could organize a massive super mega-event…

We will need a genuine mega event soon. Once Article 23 security legislation is enacted, the foreign media will be full of stories about Hong Kong not being safe for foreigners to visit. The best way to counter this narrative will not be with “wolf-warrior diplomacy” but something so spectacular that everyone in the world will want to come and see it for themselves. We must put our thinking caps on and be prepared to spend big.

Updates on the Jimmy Lai trial.

Posted in Blog | 12 Comments

A NatSec-heavy Friday

DJ-activist Tam Tak-chi loses his appeal against his 2022 sedition conviction. From AFP…

The sedition offence, formerly a little-used relic of Hong Kong’s British colonial era, was dusted off as Beijing launched a crackdown on dissent in the financial hub following 2019’s democracy protests.

It was used to convict radio DJ and democracy activist Tam Tak-chi in 2022 in the first sedition trial since the 1997 handover of Hong Kong to China. He was sentenced to 40 months in jail for over 11 offences, including seven counts of “uttering seditious words”.

Judges rejected Tam’s appeal Thursday, ruling it was unnecessary to prove intention to incite violence to convict a defendant of sedition.

“Modern experiences show that seditious acts or activities endangering national security now take many diversified forms,” they said in a written judgment.

Such as… wearing T-shirts? Did the words people utter really shift suddenly in 2019, compared with 2015, or 1995? Or was it the ruling power’s level of tolerance that changed?

This comes just months after the UK’s Privy Council ruled on a case from Commonwealth state Trinidad and Tobago that sedition must include an intention to incite violence or disorder… 

Hong Kong High Court Chief Justice Jeremy Poon said Thursday the court “has reservations” on whether the Privy Council ruling is applicable.

“Seditious intention in any given criminal code must be interpreted by reference to the specific legal and social landscape in which it exists,” he said.

The 1920s sedition law was barely used up to 2022, since when it has been used to charge various individuals and media outlets, Alvin Lum adds

The court said the proof of intention to incite violence will be against the sedition law’s legislative intent, and went on to back the very ruling that criminalise Ta Kung Pai’s editors in the 1950’s.

FWIW, the TKP editors were fined and order to suspend TKP was rescinded.

Takeaway: not only this ruling will have direct bearing on pending sedition trials like Stand News case, the judges have gone at length at each possible argument against sedition, which might even make it difficult for the top court to read down/in the offence.

And the Article 23 NatSec Law looks likely to be introduced in the legislature today. As part of it, the government might extend the 48-hour period for which people arrested on NatSec charges can be detained by an additional 14 days. It looks like the authorities will also be able to bar certain lawyers from representing accused. A ‘public interest’ defence for revealing state secrets would come with an ‘extremely high threshold where the safety of a large number of people could be endangered unless a state secret is divulged’. The Justice Secretary also says that priests should ideally report acts of treason mentioned during parishioners’ confessions. (Don’t say you weren’t warned. Anyway, is treason necessarily a sin?)

Proof that the government can listen to public opinion: officials apparently backtrack on the Gigantic Patriotic Museum-Reshuffle.

Some weekend reading…

An SCMP op-ed suggests ditching the Lantau artificial islands reclamation…

A white elephant that is stillborn would cost far less than one that dies fully grown.

As the project stands, seldom has so colossal, costly and complex a scheme come with such shoddy analysis, unproven assumptions and slogan-driven publicity akin to real estate marketing. Since the government announced the initial version of the project in 2014, it has focused on a handful of numbers – the area to be reclaimed, the number of residents – plus a proposed central business district.

…East Lantau Metropolis was apparently intended to drive the development of Lantau, while Lantau Tomorrow Vision was to help integrate Hong Kong further into the Greater Bay Area. The Kau Yi Chau project is now marketed as an extension of western Hong Kong Island that would form a harbour metropolis. This is as good as selling the same drink in three different bottles, as beer, wine and champagne.

Constructing 1,000 hectares of land for 500,000 residents in the middle of the sea, connected only by a tunnel to Hong Kong Island 4km away, should be a non-starter conceptually. 

A WSJ op-ed casts doubt on Beijing’s official economic growth figures…

How does China grow 5% despite so many headwinds, from collapsing property investment to declining population? Very likely, it doesn’t. Actual growth is probably slower, perhaps a lot slower.

…China routinely revises down previous years’ indicators, making current-year growth look stronger, without revising down earlier growth. In December, the NBS revised down the level of nominal GDP in 2022 by 0.5%, which served to boost growth in 2023, yet it kept growth for 2022 at 3%.

…China’s data quality is still subpar. Relative to other countries, GDP comes out uncommonly fast yet is hardly ever revised and lacks basic information such as quarterly consumer, business and government expenditure, said Gian Maria Milesi-Ferretti, who oversaw the International Monetary Fund’s World Economic Outlook and is now at the Brookings Institution. “The statistical standards are not up to the level they ought to be,” he said. 

The Philippines Defense Dept calls China’s actions in the South China Sea ‘patently illegal and downright uncivilized’.

Posted in Blog | 11 Comments

You reap what you sow

A major mouth-froth eruption over headlines on Bloomberg’s subscriber-only terminal news service…

The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) Government today (March 6) strongly disapproved of and condemned Bloomberg’s news headlines “HK says Telegram should be prohibited in Article 23 proposal” and “HK says Signal should be prohibited in Article 23 proposal”, and its report headlined “HK Security Law Public Consultation Lists Facebook, YouTube Ban”, which falsely reported that the HKSAR Government would legislate to ban the operation of the mentioned platforms in Hong Kong, thereby generating misunderstanding and panic regarding the legislative proposals on Article 23 of the Basic Law.

The two headlines (from what I gather) had no stories attached, and stayed up for less than half an hour before someone realized the mistake. There was indeed an error: the proposals that Hong Kong ban social media were included in a summary of feedback (starts page 119) from the public consultation on the Article 23 National Security Law. However, the headline of the report, stating that a Facebook and YouTube ban was listed in the summary, was accurate, and (again, from what I gather) the story did not state that the government was planning a ban.

Although only subscribers would have seen the headlines, word got around pretty quickly. Hence the outraged press statement, which went on…

…the report in question only one-sidedly handpicked three entries of submissions received among all others and completed it with a biased headline, attempting to mislead the international community and members of the public in the HKSAR in believing that the HKSAR Government is going to accept such views or to prohibit the relevant platforms from operating in the HKSAR. Its intention is indeed suspicious. The fake news as published by Bloomberg has undermined its trustworthiness and credibility in the media sector. 

Now officials are furiously denying that they have any intention to ban social media. (RTHK story. The Standard’s. And Bloomberg’s – somewhat updated.)

The government’s extreme reaction to an editorial mistake (‘attempting to mislead’, ‘indeed suspicious’, ‘fake news’) has a slight hand-caught-in-cookie-jar, protesting-too-much feel to it. (And of course the authorities have considered laws against ‘fake news’.)

The fact that the rumour (‘HK to ban Signal, Telegram’) spread so quickly suggests that many people believe such a measure is possible in today’s Hong Kong. Which wouldn’t be surprising after months and months of dire warnings from Security Bureau and other officials about ‘foreign forces’, supposed terrorist plots, overseas ‘fugitives’, the evils of ‘soft resistance’ – not to mention a desire to ban certain YouTube videos. Meanwhile, the handful of government-friendly figures who suggest that the authorities tone down the NatSec rhetoric have been criticized by ‘patriots’. 

Posted in Blog | 8 Comments

OK, but can we stick pins in their effigies?

‘Villain hitting’ is more popular than ever this year. But police advise the elderly women who will curse your enemies by hitting pictures of them under the Canal Road flyover not to use photos of people. This presumably means pictures of government officials. Which suggests that someone high up in the administration is somewhat thin-skinned. Or perhaps they are adopting the Mainland authorities’ dim view of feudal superstitions. (Would beating a picture of a government minister count as sedition or subversion?)

The BBC asks ‘Can a rubber stamp parliament help China’s economy?’ If the question doesn’t answer itself, Betteridge’s Law tells us ‘Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word ‘no’’. (So that answers the pins-in-effigies header.)

Like so many media, the Beeb describes China as ‘Asia’s [if not the world’s] engine of growth’. So what is the fuel for this engine? Answer: demand. And where is the demand in the global economy? Not in China, where consumption accounts for barely 50% of GDP – but in the US, where it makes up 80% of it. China does not fuel/drive/whatever the global economy.

For equities fans tempted by China’s low valuations – Goldman Sachs advises clients not to invest there…

“All our clients are asking us that question — given how cheap China appears, people inevitably say, well, has it discounted the worst news?” Sharmin Mossavar-Rahmani said in a Bloomberg Television interview. “Our view is that one should not invest in China.”

She cited a host of reasons for her take, including expectations for a steady slowdown in the economy over the next decade. China will struggle with a weakening in the three pillars of growth up to now — the property market, infrastructure and exports, she said. A lack of clarity on China’s policymaking, along with patchy economic data, add to concerns about investing there, Mossavar-Rahmani said.

China’s Communist leadership has over the past year emphasized the importance of information security and put curbs on what data can be removed from the nation. The statistics bureau also suspended for a time some unemployment figures. On Monday, Beijing announced that the country’s premier — second only to President Xi Jinping — will discontinue a decades-long tradition of annual press briefings at a key gathering.

Posted in Blog | 5 Comments