Bloomberg spots a recent shift in official wording of Hong Kong’s NatSec red lines: beforehand, you could be in trouble for doing things that ‘endanger national security’; now you’re in it for doing anything ‘contrary to the interests of national security’. The new phrasing first appeared in proposed changes to the film-censorship law, and then in charities tax guidelines.
Authorities may want to avoid arguing a specific film endangers national security, Kellogg said, as there’s a lower bar to censor movies that “merely run contrary” to its interests. That concept could also be applied to education, the arts and internet regulation, he said.
‘National security’ sounds rather abstract. Let’s say ‘Alice’. People were once forbidden to do anything that endangers Alice; now they can be jailed for doing anything contrary to the interests of Alice. That’s ‘lowering the bar’ enough to best keep out of her way.
RTHK3 host Hugh Chiverton disappears from the airwaves. An AP report on how Hong Kong’s new film censorship regime is cutting scenes from documentaries. And the China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group becomes the latest civil society organization to disband before the cops come and round them up.
If you think Hong Kong’s NatSec clampdown has already become excessive, you’ll be interested to hear that there’s more to come: laws against ‘fake news’ and doxxing, plus the local National Security legislation required by Article 23 – which is apparently still needed to supplement the NatSec Law imposed by Beijing on July 1 2020. Get used to hearing the phrase ‘plugging loopholes’ a lot more in the coming months.
Bear in mind that Beijing’s local Office for Safeguarding National Security of the Central People’s Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the HK Police NatSec Dept, plus other NatSec functions add up to a huge bureaucracy with thousands of staff and a budget of billions. They will need to continue finding new threats and arresting more subversives, if only to justify their own existence. To the extent that the plan is to impose genuine CCP-friendly Leninist-style governance, this must go on until Hong Kong becomes Mainland-without-the-capital-controls.
The Hong Kong Democracy Council announces its leadership line-up, including Alex Chow, Brian Leung and Nathan Law – sounding like a well-educated government in exile. It also has advisors, one of which is Stanford professor Larry Diamond, who supervised Regina Ip’s postgrad work. She’s quite proud of her Stanford connection, though I’m not sure the feeling is mutual.
Michael Pettis – one of the best observers on the subject – on what the Evergrande crisis means for China…
Moral hazard, in other words, underpinned the entire credit market.
That is why Chinese regulators have decided to have a showdown with creditors over Evergrande. By convincing lenders that they will no longer stand behind large Chinese borrowers, they are trying to transform the country’s financial system by making Chinese lenders more reluctant to fund nonproductive investment projects.
Also worth reading/listening to, Anne Stevenson-Yang – a video (skip over the slightly annoying interviewer) on her early days in China and, eventually, Evergrande. Her views on contemporary events start around 21.30. (Among her thoughts: the Chinese middle class see falls in property prices as an unacceptable and unjust outrage; and asset price inflation has been so great in China that the only way out ultimately is RMB devaluation.)
From a discussion on ‘China experts’ at Sinocism…
Basically, most people with a decent moral sense, solid intelligence, experience in China, and no monetary or status interest (i.e. not an ongoing businessperson, or else an academic with a prior reputation wedded to engagement or some postdoc theory of IR to uphold) tend to come down on the negative side of things, because any specific interaction with the current Xi regime leaves everyone with the same bad taste, and specific interactions can’t be papered over with the stupid Tu Zhuxi arguments about how Westerners just don’t understand Confucius.
Hugh Chiverton interviewed me when my books came out: always a voice of balance and moderation. If even he has been disappeared, there’s no hope for freedom of expression in Hong Kong.
Regarding “missing” RTHK host Hugh Chiverton, the clickbait infused digital shitrag called Dimsum Daily offers up the suggestion that his querying of Ms Curry Lamb’s decision to amend the FOO, and temerity to question whether she could forgive herself for doing so, might have something to do with his unceremonious removal. Knowing the petty vindictiveness of the authorities, and the telegraphing by the pro-Beijing press of impending bouts of repression, it’s not unthinkable that this is the singular and simple reason.
Backchat will soon be hosted by Regina Ip
Todays Prof Boyle: https://youtu.be/rQ0t964s-8Q
Still on Evergrande, I was perusing the 2020 annual report. I didn’t read it all (leave that to David Webb, how the heck does he manage do to this?) but two items caught my eye.\
p.2 For sheer management BS speak.
p.78 Where the independent (cough) auditors (PWC) adroitly manage to carve themselves out a space to avoid mentioning anything undesirable “in extremely rare circumstances”. Well played that man.
Re Nevergrande, while our financial authorities are eagerly investigating the affairs of NGOs involving the origins and expenditure of very modest sums, tycoons managing public listed companies are allowed to support their ‘pengyau’ in financial difficulties via the transfer of assets without any form of due diligence. That these buddy deals can and sometimes do incur enormous losses for small shareholders appears to be of no consequence in our skewered system.
Oh I forgot…… they are patriots. That’s OK then, small shareholder suck it up.
If your time is worth something and thus you prefer to read, here’s Anne Stevenson-Yang covering the same ground as the above video in Forbes:
Reductio: yes that is pretty outstanding management BS, but only surpassed by the arse licking map with the 8-dash (naughty) line added.
Ms. Ip’s credentialism concerning her postgrad work at Stanford always has been amusingly provincial. With exceptions including architecture, engineering, and library science, a master’s degree is an intermediate qualification of limited value. You really have to proceed to the terminal doctoral degree to demonstrate tangible expertise in a particular field. The master’s and 35 bucks will buy you a latte at Starbucks, and that’s about it. Ms. Ip is puffing up her chest over her participation ribbon.
“Ms. Ip is puffing up her chest over her participation ribbon.”
But that’s ALWAYS been her m.o. right?
To say nothing of the fact that the jolly old PhD and it’s poor relations the D Ed, D Phil, etc. have, in recent years, become the hallmarks of a very debased currency indeed.
I mean just look at the sheer number of apparent dimwits in Hong Kong who flaunt the title “Doctor”.
George Adams and Elizabeth Quat, anyone?
The Quat Doctor bought hers. In any case, outside of medicine and academia, insisting on being addressed as “Doctor” is a bit pretentious, don’t you think? I don’t expect to be called “Master” because I’ve got an MBA.
Side note – many Hong Kong medics who use “Doctor” as a courtesy title in fact only hold the MB.BS. qualification from our local medical schools, the minimum required for them to be able to practise – so many doctors here are not in fact Doctors at all.