Forbidden app in international press

The Guardian picks up the Reversed Front: Bonfire story…

Downloading the game could lead to players being charged with possessing seditious material, while making in-app purchases could be viewed as providing funding to the developers “for the commission of secession or subversion”, the police said.

Recommending the game could also constitute the offence of “incitement to secession”.

What about thinking about the game? 

It is now illegal to display a piece of cloth with no words or images on it, at least if you are the League of Social Democrats…

During the trial earlier this year, the defendants challenged whether the black cloth should be considered a poster and therefore regulated under the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance.

Magistrate Minnie Wat ruled on Thursday that the black cloth, approximately two metres long, had been displayed in an “eye-catching spot” at the street booth. Referring to footage recorded by the police, Wat said the defendants had told the public that they hung a blank black cloth because they could be fined if any words were written on the banner.

Wat sided with the prosecution, saying that the definition of a poster was “broad” and that the purpose of the legislation was to impose “appropriate rules to prevent chaos.” As the black cloth was used to “spread ideas in public” and was displayed for around two hours each time at the street booths, it met the definition of a poster, she said.

“Although the black cloth had no words, it was displayed to express the defendants’ political views and opinions about the government,” the magistrate said in Cantonese.

And a joint operation between Beijing’s Hong Kong NatSec Office and local NatSec police nets ‘six persons and an organisation … suspected of having committed the offence of “collusion with a foreign country or with external elements to endanger national security” ‘.

Transit Jam at an international conference on transport. Financial Secretary Paul Chan ‘talks about “Transit-Oriented Development” and reducing reliance on private cars’. This should be easy in a city where 90% of people don’t have a car, and the 10% who do occupy most of the street space. Unless, perhaps, civil servants account for much of the 10%.

Even when it’s 88 degrees in the shade outside, you can still hike in Hong Kong – inside a mall. Did Pacific Place last weekend. I especially recommend Level 3, which guarantees more solitude than any country park. Its high-end brands are helpfully listed here: Moncler, Louis Vuitton, Armani, Tiffany’s, Blancpain, etc.

Of the 33 shops, only four had any customers, and only Hermes actually had as many customers as staff. (I am reliably informed that Mainlanders like the label because some of its items can be resold at a profit.) In the other 29 of these stores, there were an average of three staff, sitting or standing, staring at their phones, looking thoroughly bored, but presumably decently paid. All the while, the air-conditioning runs and the landlord awaits the next payment of rent.

Meanwhile, several levels down, there are at least people strolling around. The Shake Shack was pretty much full, with people lingering next to soon-to-be-vacated tables, like in dimsum places of yore.

All of which got me thinking about New World’s 11 Skies, which will be significantly bigger than Pacific Place, but stuck all the way out at the airport. 

As things stand, it looks likely to be a monument to the hubris of Hong Kong property developers, who for decades minted money with every project and convinced themselves – and their offspring taking over the reins – that their every decision is one of profit-generating genius. So they loaded up on debt to erect a giant mega-mall, on the assumption that Mainland tourist/shopper thing would go on forever.

A video on the history of the MTR. Some of the history might be a bit iffy, and the explanations of the ‘rail plus property’ financing model rather uncritical (the maker’s dad was in the company). But still an interesting reminder of the way the system was built and paid for. How many levels does Admiralty have?

The Diplomat on the fragility of the CCP…

China’s political leadership operates under the shadow of two persistent threats, both of which ultimately stem from the regime’s fear of itself. When the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is governed collectively, factions emerge. If those factions grow too powerful, the party’s control over the country is endangered. On the other hand, if a single autocrat dominates, the risk of intra-party purges increases, as a necessarily paranoid ruler begins to see threats everywhere, especially within the ranks of the elite.

…The paradox, [Susan] Shirk argued, is that the more prosperous and advanced China becomes, the more its leaders fear their own population.

The CCP may not fear an American invasion – but it does fear that Washington seeks regime change. As a result, Beijing sees foreign interference behind everything from pro-democracy activism to protests over social issues. This vulnerability extends beyond China’s borders, fueling harsh reactions to criticism from foreign politicians and journalists, and prompting surveillance of Chinese exile groups overseas.

…Autocracy may prevent factional collapse – but it comes with its own mortal risks. Xi, like Mao, now rules for life. He has already jailed or sidelined too many rivals to ever feel secure. In a Leninist system, where no one is safe, the dictator must live in fear not just of the people – but of the CCP itself.