Big Lychee, Various Sectors

The Washington Post editorial board writes: ‘At China’s behest, the city says people can now be charged retroactively for crimes that didn’t exist when they allegedly committed them’… 

Hong Kong’s national security law has already crushed the territory’s once-vibrant civic and political life. But now the city’s hard-line authorities are making the law even more repressive for anyone caught in its net.

Under updates which took effect this week, the city’s chief executive can classify any case as a national security crime under the 2020 law, even when the alleged offense was committed before that law took effect.

For good reasons, people cannot generally be told they violated a law that didn’t exist when they broke it. Yet Hong Kong’s leaders, beholden to China, don’t care.

The chief executive — picked by Beijing, with no popular mandate — now gets to classify any criminal act as a national security offense. The authorities classified this as housekeeping. Or as Chief Executive John Lee put it, the changes were designed “purely to make the law even clearer.”

But the authorities used a procedure to impose these changes without public comment and the usual legislative review.

Being charged with a national security offense carries enormous consequences for defendants. They can be jailed immediately and held for longer pre-trial detention periods. They are denied the ordinary presumption of innocence and denied bail. And they can be denied their choice of lawyer, as happened to newspaper publisher Jimmy Lai.

Their case is also heard before a judge chosen by — guess who? — the chief executive himself.

The HK government issues a predictably robust response…

The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) today (June 13) strongly condemns the wanton slander and groundless allegations made by The Washington Post in its article entitled “Hong Kong’s nightmare gets darker”, criticising the Safeguarding National Security (Procedural Matters) Regulation (Procedural Matters Regulation). The article clearly exposes The Washington Post’s irrational anti-China stance and double standards, falling well short of what is expected of professional journalism.

…The Washington Post, shamelessly display[s] its hypocrisy and double standards by pointing fingers at the HKSAR as we continuously improve our legal system to fulfill a constitutional duty to safeguard national security.”

…”Any reasonable and objective person who has studied the three provisions of the Procedural Matters Regulation with care, and observed the relevant discussions at the Legislative Council (LegCo) meetings would have no difficulty in finding that the Procedural Matters Regulation has no retrospective effect at all. It does not create any new offence or alter the penalties of any offence. It certainly does not turn any lawful conduct into an offence. It is not applicable to legal proceedings that are concluded. Yet, The Washington Post falsely and maliciously claimed that ‘people can now be charged retroactively for crimes that didn’t exist when they allegedly committed them’. Its ignorance of facts and betrayal of the basic tenets of responsible journalism are shocking, irresponsible, and totally unacceptable behaviour for any media organisation.

…Regarding The Washington Post’s baseless claim that Hong Kong is now “a less secure place to visit or do business”, the spokesperson said, “It is most appalling that The Washington Post has to resort to dirty tricks and tell bold-faced lies to smear the HKSAR. 

Ever since the NPC ‘interpretation’ procedure started to be used to give Basic Law clauses meanings that were never in the original wording, I have ceased as a layman to see much point in reading the fine print in legislation. So I honestly have no idea whether this (Procedural Matters) Regulation (Procedural Matters Regulation) is retroactive or not. The government seems pretty adamant that it isn’t – though, given the uniformly outraged tone of the press statement, it’s hard to calibrate how adamant anything is.

That was quick. The Standard reports…

The Hong Kong Legislative Council swiftly completed a clause-by-clause review of newly amended national security subsidiary legislation on Thursday afternoon. The fast-tracked process, driven by cited geopolitical risks, centers on a mechanism allowing the Chief Executive to certify criminal cases as national security offenses.

…Secretary for Justice Paul Lam Ting-kwok explained that the Chief Executive certificate mechanism aligns with established common law principles, noting that courts traditionally respect the executive branch’s specialized experience and assessment of security risks.

Lam also clarified that the regulation carries no retrospective effect and will not apply to already completed legal proceedings.

Tang refuted public claims that the mechanism would arbitrarily expand the scope of national security crimes to cover minor, ordinary offenses.

He described such allegations as misleading attempts to incite public distrust, emphasizing that the classification will only apply to cases with a genuine national security background, a scenario he expects to be extremely rare.

From HKFP…

Two Hong Kong officials have condemned “groundless accusations” against a recent update to the city’s homegrown national security law, which empowers the chief executive to certify any criminal case as a national security offence. 

Secretary for Security Chris Tang told the Legislative Council (LegCo) on Thursday afternoon that he noticed some people had misunderstood or “deliberately misinterpreted” the subsidiary legislation. 

They tried to intimidate the public by claiming that the subsidiary law would widen the scope of national security offences, turning minor offences into national security crimes, he said.

The security chief called the accusations “false, misleading, deceptive, and scaremongering” and said some people were attempting to incite hatred towards the government.

“Some people delivered alarmist remarks, saying that the government can randomly certify any acts of the public as national security offences. Those people may have ulterior motives or are cruel-hearted, hoping to incite others’ hatred of the HKSAR,” Tang said in Cantonese.

Also speaking at LegCo, Secretary for Justice Paul Lam said he noticed “some media outlets with ulterior motives, foreign forces, and fugitives” had made “groundless accusations” against the national security law.

The phrases ‘incitement of hatred towards the government’ and ‘foreign forces’ hint at NatSec offences sedition and collusion respectively. ‘Cruel-hearted’ is a new one. Makes me want to grab a tissue and burst into tears.

RTHK says…

[Chris Tang] … said some “bad actors” have been spreading misinformation about the subsidiary legislation in an attempt to scare the public and incite hatred towards the government.

This showed that threats to national security still exist, Tang said. 

This looks like an endless loop: ‘spreading misinformation’ about NatSec legislation is proof of a need for NatSec legislation?

Paul Lam says only the executive has the intel to decide whether a normal offence should be recategorized a NatSec one…

At a Legco subcommittee meeting on Thursday to discuss the matter, the justice minister said many common law jurisdictions, such as the UK and US, defer to executive authorities to decide whether a criminal act infringes on national security matters.

“For you to make an appropriate judgement in defence of national security, you need to consider a host of information, including confidential, sensitive information,” Lam said.

“So the question is, is it what lawyers, judges are trained to do? The answer is definitely not. The most reasonable [course of action] is for the executive authorities to shoulder the responsibility to carry out the intelligence, analyse intelligence and so forth.”

He also said that giving the CE the authority in national security cases won’t undermine judicial independence.

“The chief executive’s role is only to decide whether a case is related or involves national security. The certificate cannot [possibly] be made or seen as having an effect on sentencing or the final judgement of the court.” 

This last point seems to be a core line-to-take. But maybe not everyone would agree that transfer from a regular court – with, say, a jury – to one with only a government-picked judge and a 99% conviction rate ‘cannot possibly have an effect on the final judgement’. How to convince them otherwise? Cue Ronny…

Executive councillor and senior counsel Ronny Tong said subsidiary legislation clarifying the classification mechanism for “other offences endangering national security under the law of the HKSAR” will not affect the substantive rights of defendants.

…”And since this is simply a change or improvement of procedure, it doesn’t affect the substantive rights of the defendant.

“It does not affect the nature of the offence, it does not affect the punishment to be dished out in the case of a conviction, and it doesn’t deal with or change the governing principles regarding those offences.”

And maybe there’s more to come…

Tong also said moving forward, there might be a need to consider amending the law to include new conducts that pose a threat to national security.

“Conviction of an offence and a threat to national security are two different things. And sometimes – although it may be very rare – a threat to national security may not constitute a criminal act. It all depends on how the criminal act is framed by the legislature.

“It might mean that in the future, we might find that there are conducts which constitute a threat to national security but it’s not yet a national security offence, then we may need to consider amending our national security law to include that conduct.”

Or maybe you could just allow the CE to issue a certificate deeming – on a very rare, case-by-case basis – any legal thought, word or deed a NatSec offence. 

Hong Kong is set to receive 53.8 million tourists this year.

HKFP reports…

Hong Kong authorities are exploring the introduction of a real-name reservation system for a popular hiking trail in Sai Kung to curb overtourism. 

Speaking at a Legislative Council (LegCo) panel meeting on Monday, Dianne Wong, under secretary for environment and ecology, said the registration system could prevent excessive arrivals at the Po Pin Chau section at Sai Kung’s East Dam during holidays, allowing better visitor flow management and preventing overcrowding. 

…Monday’s proposal comes after excessive tourism caused environmental damage to Sharp Island during China’s National Day Golden Week in October, with some tourists seen trampling on corals and digging up marine life. 

Maybe the next step will be to offer the overtourists an AI Immersive-cum-Geopark Experience, whereby they sit in a hall in Fanling with huge goggles strapped to their heads that give them a 3D 360-degree virtual reality day out. They can even fall off a cliff taking selfies and come to no harm. Then the authorities can offer the exciting package at a location in Shenzhen, to save the ‘visitors’ the trouble of actually coming here.

RTHK tells us…

Chief Secretary Eric Chan said on Wednesday the government would transform Hong Kong into a world-class tourist destination, amid solid growth for inbound tourism this year. 

…”We’ll fully utilise all policies that are beneficial to Hong Kong from the central government to transform the city into a world-class tourist destination preferred by global travellers,” he told event participants. 

“We’ll also leverage Hong Kong’s unique advantages of linking the mainland with the world to become an important window for cultural exchanges between the East and the West.” 

I take the phrase ‘utilise all policies’ to mean ‘virtual reality headsets in Shenzhen’.

The SCMP says that the new procedure for turning non-NatSec criminal charges into NatSec ones could be retroactive…

Hong Kong’s new legislation enables certain criminal cases to be retroactively brought under national security procedures even if the alleged offences occurred before the 2020 national security law was enacted.

The subsidiary legislation, which introduces a classification mechanism for “other offences endangering national security” under the city’s domestic national security law, was gazetted and came into effect on Tuesday.

Under the new law, any case certified by the chief executive will be classified as a national security offence, even if the act or the prosecution occurred before the national security law came into force in 2020.

What if you’ve already been tried and found not guilty? Or found guilty and already served your sentence? Do they re-arrest you and send you to a NatSec court for a second trial for your newly NatSec-ized offence?

A Tweet translates a Pulse HK article…

A current affairs commentator has questioned that the new subsidiary legislation effectively grants the administrative authorities powers akin to the mainland’s “criminal detention” system; scholars have also criticized the administration for stripping the courts of their judicial interpretation rights, while the legislature turns a blind eye, calling it “Hong Kong’s tragedy.”

Current affairs commentator Lam Siu-pan [describes] the “certificate” empowered by the new subsidiary legislation—which allows the Chief Executive to deem other offenses as “endangering national security crimes”—as akin to a “magic wand,” enabling the administrative authorities to easily bypass judicial thresholds. With a wave of the Chief Executive’s “magic wand,” investigations and trials in relevant cases can align with “national security standards,” allowing for no jury, decisions by “designated judges” alone, and he is particularly concerned about the detention period for arrestees.

Lam Siu-pan gave an example: If a citizen “jaywalks” near Victoria Park on a “sensitive day,” and police suspect the motive for the illegal crossing is to participate in some form of “illegal assembly” that “endangers national security,” as long as the Chief Executive issues a “certificate,” it triggers a mechanism to detain that jaywalking citizen under national security provisions for up to 16 days before formal charges. 

Someone Tweeted yesterday that it will be interesting to see who this procedure is first used against. It was introduced and enacted quite suddenly; do the authorities have someone in mind?

Via HKFP, more explanation from the CE of the make-things-NatSec plan…

A Hong Kong government proposal that will allow the city’s leader to certify criminal acts as national security offences is intended to “make the law clear,” Chief Executive John Lee has said. 

Speaking at a press conference on Tuesday, Lee said the new subsidiary legislation for Hong Kong’s homegrown national security law, the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, commonly known as Article 23, “is purely to make the law even clearer.” 

From RTHK…

Chief Executive John Lee said on Tuesday that a proposed piece of subsidiary legislation to clearly define the classification mechanism for “other offences endangering national security under the law of the HKSAR” will make the relevant laws clearer for the administration of justice.

Under the proposal … if the chief executive issues a certificate under the law confirming that a criminal act involves national security, the case shall be treated as one.

And where a person is charged with – or convicted of – an alternative offence arising from the same act in a case involving a national security offence, that alternative offence shall also be classified as an offence endangering national security.

Speaking ahead of the weekly Executive Council meeting, Lee said the move “will have the benefit of reducing the risk of controversies or debates in court about what constitutes an offence endangering national security”. 

Hope that clears it all up for you.

Mark Simon on why Beijing should release Jimmy Lai…

…In Hong Kong, it’s mission accomplished. There is no sign of any political dissent on the campus or on the streets, certainly none in the boardroom or newsroom. Would releasing political prisoners change that situation? Hundreds have been released and no trouble yet. Would it be any different if others were released, or more importantly released to leave Hong Kong? This is the premise for the cost benefit analysis of imprisoning Jimmy Lai.

So what exactly is the cost? It begins with reputation and compounds from there. Hong Kong’s extraordinary run as Asia’s premier financial hub was built not merely on geography or low taxes, but on a credible rule of law — the idea that contracts would be honored, courts would be independent, and journalists could report freely. Jimmy Lai’s trial, stretching on for years under a national security law that most Western legal scholars regard as fundamentally incompatible with common law traditions, has become a living advertisement that those guarantees are gone. Every time Lai’s case appears in the financial press, every time a Western government issues a statement calling for his release, Hong Kong’s brand takes another quiet but measurable hit.

The Hong Kong government plans to allow the chief executive…

…to certify any criminal act as a national security case, in a legal update that would be binding on the courts. 

…The chief executive is already empowered to issue certificates to decide whether an act involves national security, but the new subsidiary legislation aims to “bring greater certainty” to the courts. There will no longer be room to debate whether an ordinary crime could face national security procedures when a certificate is issued. 

RTHK reports the official wording…

The Security Bureau and the Department of Justice have announced plans to introduce subsidiary legislation to clearly define the classification mechanism for “other offences endangering national security under the law of the HKSAR,” as stipulated under the Hong Kong National Security Law (HKNSL) and the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance (SNSO).

…The move, they said, aims to strengthen legal clarity, enhance procedural efficiency, and enable timely prevention and response to national security risks.

…The proposed subsidiary legislation … will set out two key principles.

If the Chief Executive issues a certificate … confirming that a criminal act involves national security, the case shall be treated as one concerning an offence endangering national security…

…And, where a person is charged with — or convicted of — an alternative offence arising from the same act in a case involving a national security offence, that alternative offence shall also be classified as an offence endangering national security. 

Question: does this mean the government can put someone facing any criminal charge into the NatSec court system – where there’s no bail (probably), no jury, a hand-picked judge, and a 99% conviction rate? 

Via RTHK, a government clarification…

The government said on Monday that proposed subsidiary legislation to clearly define the classification mechanism for “other offences endangering national security under the law of the HKSAR” does not involve the introduction of any new offences.

But…

Under the proposal to be enacted under Section 110 of the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance (SNSO), if the chief executive issues a certificate under the law confirming that a criminal act involves national security, the case shall be treated as one.

Sounds like a ‘yes’. It doesn’t create new NatSec offences – it just makes all offences potentially NatSec ones.

And where a person is charged with – or convicted of – an alternative offence arising from the same act in a case involving a national security offence, that alternative offence shall also be classified as an offence endangering national security.

At a Legislative Council panel meeting, Secretary for Justice Paul Lam said there are no changes to the implementation details or scope of application of the SNSO and the Hong Kong National Security Law.

…“As for whether a defendant is guilty or not, that remains solely for the court to rule independently in accordance with the law, and the court will ensure that the defendant receives a fair trial.” 

With no jury, a hand-picked judge, etc.

AP adds…

Simon Young, a law professor at the University of Hong Kong … said there is the danger of the chief executive relying upon secret information to judge the case as involving national security, leaving the defendant no room to contest the decision.

“This is not new and something I had warned about from the beginning, the danger to the rule of law and fair trial from an unreviewable executive power to determine critical facts binding on the court,” he said.

Eric Lai, a fellow at Georgetown Center for Asian Law, said the will of the leader may “arbitrarily” turn criminal cases into national security matters under the proposed change, and such exercise of power comes without institutional safeguards to prevent abuse of it. That approach could further erode the city’s rule of law, he said. 

He added that the chief executive could also step into other criminal cases, such as commercial fraud and money laundering, under the pretext of safeguarding national security. These offenses are often being weaponized to suppress dissidents in authoritarian states, he said. 

As an example (Standard story page 3, June 9), the Security Secretary tells LegCo that someone helping a NatSec offender escape from prison might have his offence upgraded to NatSec status.

The government tries to overturn the acquittal of former ICAC investigator and Democratic Party lawmaker Lam Cheuk-ting of ‘perverting the course of justice’ while asking someone to delete possibly incriminating photos of participants in a 2019 protest… 

[Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Ivan] Cheung presented to the court a video of the exchange, in which Lam said that “what matters now is to delete the photos with protesters’ faces.”

Although Lam verbally said that he wanted to help X leave the scene, he could also have harboured an intent to pervert the course of justice, Cheung told the three appeal judges.

X had previously testified that Lam did not force him to delete the photos and that he agreed the lawmaker was mediating the situation.

The prosecutor said the lower court erred in finding that Lam had no intent to pervert the course of justice.

However, Judge Derek Pang said on Thursday that it was impossible to conclude that Lam had that intent, while Judge Judianna Barnes said Lam’s actions did not necessarily suggest his intent.

The lower court was a regular, not National Security, sort. 

Lam has been charged several times in recent years, including for ‘rioting’ after trying to intervene in the Yuen Long Station attack on July 21 2019. And he is currently in prison for ‘subversion’ after taking part in the pan-dem primary elections in July 2020. You may think the authorities have a peculiar obsession with him; I couldn’t possibly comment. 

A thread from Desmond Shum on the US regulatory authorities’ bar against Mainland and Hong Kong investors buying shares in SpaceX (Reuters report here)…

As a Hong Kong passport holder, I’m fully aware of how its meaning has changed over the past decade.

It is no longer treated as the distinct identity it once was. Increasingly, it is viewed as simply another form of Chinese passport.

…for wealthy Hong Kongers, the SpaceX IPO exclusion will still come as a shock. The message is blunt: a Hong Kong identity can now be enough to exclude someone from parts of the global financial system, because that identity is increasingly synchronized with China. 

SpaceX is run by a drug-addled fantasist. Institutions are shamelessly forecasting revenues equivalent to 10% of US GDP in a decade and letting retail investors buy into the IPO with just a few thousand bucks. Not being allowed to buy such absurdly overvalued stock is like not being allowed to eat dog poo. But this is nonetheless a wake-up call to anyone who still needs it: Hong Kong and its people used to be on one side of a wall, and now they’re on the other.

HKFP op-ed on the case of a man arrested for sedition after scattering some home-made leaflets around his apartment block. He will not be beheaded by the Gestapo, like the Munich students who did something similar in 1943. But…

…it should not be a matter of rejoicing that we have joined the club of countries where the channels of public communication have been so choked by fear and restrictions that citizens who wish to express their views are reduced to scattering anonymous leaflets.

Our government seems to have inherited the thin skin of our notoriously sensitive police force. Now even legislators – carefully vetted patriots to a man or woman – are complaining that any comment on government policy which falls short of a rousing endorsement is branded as dishonesty or worse by official spokespersons.

The Atlantic on China’s unsustainable mercantilist economic model…

Chinese manufacturers would be competitive without Xi’s help. He provides massive aid anyway—directly, with handouts and tax breaks, and indirectly, by suppressing the wages of factory workers and the value of China’s currency to make the country’s exports artificially cheap. The result is an economic model that favors producers, restrains consumers, and floods international markets with supercheap exports, including steel, solar panels, and electric vehicles. Foreign companies simply can’t compete. Chinese competition is costing Germany 10,000 manufacturing jobs a month and could strip Indonesia of hundreds of thousands of garment-worker jobs. China’s trade surplus ballooned to a record $1.2 trillion last year. As a share of the global economy, China’s surplus in manufactured goods is the largest amassed by any country ever. 

…Xi’s policies are spurring “the forced deindustrialization” of advanced economies worldwide. 

…China’s economic policies aren’t great for China, either. Its economy has been floundering. Private investment and consumer spending remain weak, property values have been slumping, and the competition for jobs is fierce. Xi’s industrial programs encourage too much investment in factories, which often lose money and require yet more state aid to survive. Taxpayer funds that could be spent on social services and welfare programs are instead propping up a glut of assembly lines. 

As a result, Chinese families are essentially subsidizing shoppers around the world while their own quality of life suffers.  

…Xi could alleviate tensions with trading partners and pressures at home by reforming the economy to stimulate more domestic demand, so that Chinese households could buy more Chinese goods. But Xi has avoided these reforms, perhaps because they would compromise his grip on the country by forcing him to cede power to markets.  

Imagine that the latest fad ever lives up to its propaganda, and agentic/generative AI displaces millions of jobs in companies. Corporations ultimately rely on demand from consumers who also happen to be each other’s employees. With millions of laid-off people, that demand will diminish, leaving the AI-staffed companies with far fewer customers to produce goods and services for. 

Big tech is almost certainly exaggerating AI’s potential for emulating humans – they need to lure trillions in investment and scare businesses into adopting their products. Beijing’s mercantilism, on the other hand, genuinely kills manufacturing jobs in developed and developing countries. Even if leaders in the US/ EU remain too stupid/powerless to hit back effectively, at some point the numbers will cease to add up. You can’t have one country that makes everything but imports nothing: everyone will end up much poorer.

(Not an exact parallel, but when the emperor in Beijing followed a mercantilist policy 200 years ago, foreign merchants literally ran out of silver coins. So they started to use opium as a means of exchange instead.)

Some excitable types debate the extent to which Chinese leaders over several decades have deliberately planned to dominate global manufacturing as a way to accumulate surpluses and leverage over trade partners. 

Subscribers to the ‘oriental wisdom long-term thinking’ theory see a carefully crafted plot, while the more cynical assume the CCP mostly makes it up as it goes along. Certainly, Beijing has a deep-rooted obsession with self-sufficiency and pounces on opportunities to weaponize trade dependency, but not always in a subtle way that guarantees long-term international influence. And as we can see, the model itself is unsustainable and harms Chinese as well as foreign households. So on balance, it looks like they drifted into it and now don’t know how to stop.   

From HKFP, a fully illustrated account of how the HK Police spent June 4 in Causeway Bay, apparently setting up a roadblock on a pedestrian-only street…

Another woman was seen gesturing “six” and “four” with her hands at around 6pm on Great George Street in Causeway Bay, The Collective reported. Police officers at the scene warned her that her behaviour could be “seditious”. They pressed her hands down and took her away into a police vehicle.

At around 6.30pm, Chan Po-ying, chairperson of the now-defunct League of Social Democrats, a pro-democracy party, appeared in Causeway Bay with a yellow paper flower.

Police at the scene warned Chan that her behaviour might constitute “disorder in public places” and told her to put the flower in her bag. 

Officers then took her away in a police vehicle.

A man was surrounded by police officers on Paterson Street after being spotted holding a candle at around 7pm.

While being searched, he asked whether he was being arrested and said that he did not have to comply with their orders if he was not under arrest. “I know my rights,” he said.

After he asked again whether he was under arrest, an officer said, “Disorderly conduct,” and they escorted him into a police van.

A young man in a black T-shirt was intercepted by police after he put on a blindfold and used a red marker pen to write on his arm outside the Sogo department store at around 7.15pm.

…Before he got into the [police] van, he pulled out a small red book that appeared to be China’s constitution. 

Video of another incident here.

Some exquisitely curated weekend reading…

The Guardian on efforts to collect and preserve photos and accounts from Tiananmen in 1989…

The passage of time, with the world’s eyes soon drawn elsewhere, and suppression by authorities at home mean that the pivotal moment in Chinese history is at risk of fading into grey. 

…One aspect particular at risk is a detail less commonly associated with the massacre: the hope that blossomed in the days leading up to the killing of hundreds, possibly thousands, of unarmed protesters by the Chinese army as they demanded democratic reforms.

One collection encapsulating that sense is a set of photographs taken by Austrian sinologist Helmut Opletal who was posted to Beijing as a journalist in May 1989. His photographs show crowds of protesters holding up banners calling for freedom and democracy, many with smiles on their faces and thrusting peace signs into the air.

…The Opletal photographs are among the hundreds of items hosted by China Unofficial Archives (CUA), a grassroots project launched in 2023 as a US-registered non-profit that aims to protect “censored and suppressed Chinese history”. 

Is Beijing abolishing the hukou? A long read from ezine Positions…

The question of hukou’s demise, however, is as old as China’s capitalist reforms. In 1994, when mass rural-urban migration was only just beginning, South China Morning Post ran the headline “Registration System Set to Be Abolished” (Chan and Buckingham 2008, 583). It wasn’t, but six years later the State Development Planning Commission announced that, “…China aims to abolish the system over the next five years” (Xinhua 2001). Four years after that, The New York Times credulously reported, “China plans to abolish legal distinctions between urban residents and peasants in 11 provinces” (Kahn 2005). In response to this anthology of dashed hopes, misinterpretations, and some bad faith propaganda, Kam Wing Chan and Will Buckingham penned a landmark article in The China Quarterly in 2008 in which they answered definitively: no, the hukou may be changing but it is not going away. 

The Diplomat on the mixed messages in Chinese film The Belief. The movie is about the Battle of Peng Hu, a naval engagement in the 1680s (some 40 years after the Manchu conquest), in which a Qing fleet fought and defeated that of the Tungning Kingdom, a Ming-loyalist regime in Taiwan.

To the CCP, the storyline should be obvious: the Mainland seizes Taiwan. But to some nationalistic Chinese, the parallels are less straightforward. The Qing were Manchu invaders who oppressed the Han for centuries up to the 1911 revolution. (As it happens, most combatants on both sides in the Peng Hu battle were Fujianese.)…

The backlash to “The Belief” reflects a strong anti-Qing sentiment in contemporary Chinese society. Where is this mood coming from?

The Qing Dynasty ended over a century ago, making it unlikely that contemporary Chinese people possess a deep collective memory of living under Qing rule. Furthermore, the Manchus in China today have been highly assimilated by the Han Chinese, and their language has almost become extinct. This means that a serious cultural conflict between the Han Chinese and Manchus is also unlikely. These factors make this question particularly perplexing.

…contrast the reception of “The Belief” with the surge in popularity of palace dramas and romance dramas set in the Qing Dynasty in mainland China during the 2010s. Some of these dramas achieved extremely high ratings during this period. 

However, in recent years, films and television series set in this dynasty have faced more severe questioning and criticism regarding their political and nationalist implications. This represents a new wave of Han chauvinism, which has clashed with official discourse.

Under the Han chauvinistic narrative that has gained strength in recent years, the Qing Dynasty is often seen as a dark age for the Han people, bringing entirely negative consequences to Chinese history. This dynasty is frequently associated with massacres, national humiliation, monarchical autocracy, and cultural control. 

…the Manchus … did enjoy certain privileges during their rule. These privileges have led to a deliberate distinction between the Manchus and Han Chinese in today’s sentiment, equating the Manchus with the “ruling class” and portraying them as “oppressors” of the Han. This reminds people of the rigid class system in today’s Chinese society. Viewed through this lens, the rise in anti-Qing sentiment is essentially a collective historical imagination, used to provide catharsis for contemporary Chinese dissatisfaction with reality. 

From Semafor, a look at how Beijing has created the enemy it sees in Japan…

Japan-bashing has become the core of a strident Chinese nationalism, with disastrous consequences. Indeed, Beijing’s nonstop demonization, economic coercion, and regular harassment of Japan, its people, and its institutions have created the monster it most fears. 

More than you could possibly want to know about Beijing indie band (and today’s guest stars) Carsick Cars.

A break from the mundane usual, courtesy of the couple who have given birth to three children at home with no professional medical care. The first, born in Finland, died. The second, also born in Finland, was taken into care in Sweden. The latest was born in a Hong Kong apartment, with the father cutting the umbilical cord. Authorities are anxious because the parents haven’t registered the birth within the required six weeks. The parents were arrested for child neglect. (Out on bail, if you want an update.)

Various reports quote officials or others declaring that the child doesn’t legally exist. (It obviously does: you could gently prod it with your finger to prove it’s there; if it wasn’t, the government would have no grounds to arrest the couple.)

The parents believe – among other things – that invasive procedures like injections or DNA tests are against their religion.

What’s the Scandinavian connection? I’m also intrigued about their faith, which I haven’t seen reported. I’m betting Jehova’s Witnesses. They have that ‘look’.

Oz ABC News looks back at 1989 and its aftermath in today’s Hong Kong…

“…for Hong Kong, a society that functioned with these democratic rights and freedoms and free press for over a century, to have it taken away inexorably and quite quickly over the last 20 years, has been a bit of a blow to many, many people.” 

On which note: a performance artist – sorry, another performance artist – stopped by police in Causeway Bay.

Victoria Park is occupied around June 4 by a patriotic ‘hometown market’…

Kung Chun-lung, chairperson of the Hong Kong Guangdong Federation, said the carnival will introduce products of “rural rejuvenation,” such as sweet potato, corn, and peanut. The five-day event will also see performances by local celebrities, such as Maria Cordero, as well as a traditional Chinese war dance and a “robotic band”…

There was a time when government officials would dread having to answer questions in the Legislative Council. Pan-democrat lawmakers – and even the occasional ‘pro-business’ one – would maul them if the quality of governance was failing to match public expectations. Then LegCo became ‘all-patriot’, and the chamber’s members embraced a new role: universally supporting the executive branch, rather than holding it to account. At least, 99.9% of the time.

Yet ministers are still not happy. Perhaps, with opposition politicians, media and civic groups all pretty much vanished, top officials’ skins have become thinner and more sensitive. Indeed, the sharp words and pointed questions that were once a daily part of the job have become ‘incitement’ or at least ‘soft resistance’. Even the mildest suggestion that the executive branch is at fault might be met with shock and outrage. Some legislators are so upset that they complained to the chamber’s president…

Hong Kong Legislative Council president Starry Lee Wai-king has urged officials to respect lawmakers’ dissenting views amid a recent rise in government pushback, stressing that public policies “always have pros and cons”.

…Lee said she had relayed lawmakers’ concerns to the government regarding officials’ recent rebuttals. She described the relationship between the executive and legislative branches as an ongoing process requiring mutual respect from both sides…

Her remarks came after several recent incidents in which government officials publicly rebuked lawmakers. These included the Department of Health criticising legislator Chris Ip Ngo-tung, without naming him, for raising concerns about the ban on alternative smoking products, accusing him of “spreading false information and misleading the public and visitors” in April.

…“I call on different stakeholders, including government officials, to respect the diverse views of legislators. In fact, there is never a policy with only one voice,” Lee said, urging officials to engage lawmakers proactively when encountering opposing opinions.

When do you last remember a Hong Kong lawmaker being critical of the administration?

China Media Project on Beijing’s preparations ahead of June 4…

The deep sensitivity surrounding the juxtaposition of International Children’s Day and June Fourth means that for the Chinese Communist Party, this will be a week of profound and insistent amnesia. And part of that act of erasure is the noisy affirmation of the party’s power over the future of China’s youth.  

Millions of yacht owners dance in the streets upon hearing that they can now sail their boats between Hong Kong and half a dozen Pearl River Delta cities with less paperwork. Is weaving in and out of container ships the ideal way to go to Zhuhai or Dongguan? Though Zhongshan is worth a visit.

The Hong Kong government said on Saturday that it welcomed the new policy.

“Under the new policy, the exemption [from] the requirement for a guarantee will significantly reduce the financial burden” on yacht owners, it said in a statement.

It also praised the simplified registration scheme, which allows Hong Kong and Macau yachts to obtain temporary national ship registration from mainland China “without affecting their original ship registration.”

Owners of Hong Kong and Macau yachts previously had to pay hefty customs guarantees and undergo complex registration procedures before entering mainland ports.

This is all part of a push to develop the ‘yacht economy’. Presumably, a group of civil servants were locked into a room and told they would not be let out until they had identified a new economic activity for which Hong Kong could conceivably become a hub-zone. They eventually came up with yachting. Perhaps more a hobby than a sector. As with, say, stamp-collecting, the pastime surely accounts for a microscopic percentage of Hong Kong’s GDP, so it certainly has room to grow. ‘Room’, of course, is not the same as ‘potential’.

Speaking of ‘tremendous opportunities’, the CE and some old, long-forgotten faces like Jeffrey Lam and Fred Ma are on a delegation to Kazakhstan. (Did they go by yacht?)