A chatty Bloomberg ‘weekend essay’ tries to paint a rosy picture of a Hong Kong that is poised to thrive once more…
As a global city, Hong Kong is starting to resemble the place it was before the drama of the protests and years of Covid controls.
Expats, including some of those who fled for Singapore during Covid, are beginning to return. (Covid Zero is temporary, I joked to people thinking of leaving back in 2022; Singapore is for life.) In conversations with businesspeople, the national security law rarely comes up. If I mention it, most of them tell me it’s made little difference to their life. There are other pressing issues, such as plunging retail sales, the trade war and how to beat scalpers when buying tickets for visiting star acts.
The focus is now on Hong Kong’s future — from stability to prosperity, as the official slogan goes. How the city has evolved is still too risky a topic for public discussion, which prevents people from working through the trauma of 2019 and the pandemic.
That silence could become Hong Kong’s next liability. To function effectively as an international finance center, people need to feel that they can speak freely about even controversial subjects. Critics of government policy risk being accused of engaging in so-called soft resistance. Whether the city’s more peaceful era will allow greater openness remains to be seen.
What is clear is that while the city has changed, it has not been transformed by the national security law. It still acts as the vital go-between for the West and China. And the humor, pragmatism and hard work of the Hong Kong people, which has characterized the city for me over the decades, continues.
NatSec has not transformed Hong Kong, yet some topics are now ‘too risky for public discussion’. Do Chinese or Western businesses or officials see, let alone use, the city as a ‘vital go-between’? Does Beijing want an ‘international’ financial centre here, or just a convenient Chinese-but-offshore one?
Perhaps someone at Bloomberg thought it would be judicious to publish a vaguely positive piece on Hong Kong, maybe in the hope of pleasing local or Beijing authorities who might dislike the company’s coverage of topics like debt-ridden property developers. If so, it is unlikely to succeed: local officials expect full-blown agreement with the line that the city’s new style of governance is an improvement, and that a permanent and increasing emphasis on patriotism and national security is essential.
Which brings us to some stories from the last few days…
From HKFP – lawmakers could have their pay docked for criticizing – or ‘vilifying’ – the government.
The US Consulate is having problems finding venues for public events, like pro-democracy groups before they disbanded.
An interview with Baroness Hale, who was appointed as one of Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal part-timers before quitting as she felt the city’s rule of law was being undermined…
I am now all the more convinced that it was the right thing to do because, as things have developed, the National Security Law has taken over the Basic Law. Even though the foreign judges are not likely to be asked to sit on national security cases, they are being asked to give respectability to a system that despite the best efforts, I’m sure, of people I know in Hong Kong … they are not going to succeed.
The case where Tim Owen was not allowed to represent Jimmy Lai—probably it wouldn’t have done any good any way—but nevertheless that was a case of Beijing’s interference with a decision in which the Hong Kong court had said yes he could act, and Beijing said no. So you don’t want to be part of a system like that, you just don’t. I feel very sorry for them, very sorry.
One of the rare occasions a former senior judge actually says something, and indeed even pats herself on the back. For example, on a particular written ruling: ‘I did not say anything that the others weren’t saying, but I just said it in a much shorter way. Again this is an example of my judgments that young people like…’
Unimpressed by her hip-with-the kids credentials, the Hong Kong government issues the inevitable angry press release…
A spokesman of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) Government today (July 4) said that the statement made by the former non-permanent judge of the Court of Final Appeal (CFA), Brenda Hale, on the Hong Kong National Security Law (HKNSL) and the rule of law and independent judicial power in Hong Kong is far from the truth, particularly her assertion that the so-called “the National Security Law has taken over the Basic Law” is absolutely incorrect and contrary to the facts.
From Labubu to Delulu
Now the British are gone, the only thing preventing Hong Kong from becoming the modern equivalent of Carthage is the US$ peg. When that fails, Foshan here we come.
Love the idea that the officials of Yankeeland in HK are now struggling to do their ‘thing’. We should remember that the USA 4cked over numerous jurisdictions during the last century or so. To this end, I am delighted that the Hong Kong and the Mainland authorities are now implementing a tight-leash policy. Critically, never, ever smile at a crocodile: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGkdcpTY1QI
If I had USD1 for e v e r y farking time “pragmatic” was used in describing HK People…
Re: Ms Hale – “…particularly her assertion that the so-called “the National Security Law has taken over the Basic Law” is absolutely incorrect and contrary to the facts.”
So is the HKCCPSARG saying the NSL is “so-called”?? Or that entire sentence is A “so-called” sentence/statement? I’m slightly confused.
Hale’s autobiography Spider Woman is worth reading.
Talks of one colleague being in a “come the revolution” mood.
Plus Johnson’s attempted use of the law to prorogue Parliament as being where “tyrany lies”.
Not perfect but much rather have her, as a former academic, than the majority of barristers who end up as senior judges.
Re: the Bloomberg piece, as though the expat business people interviewed were any reasonable arbiter of Hong Kong’s “spirit”. Motivations of the corporate office aside, a piece like this is useless for answering anything other than the narrow question “is Hong Kong still a reasonably pleasant and profitable place for a well-compensated expatriate executive?” To which the answer is “yes” and “eh, sort of”. Well-compensated expatriate executives would be the last people to notice anything wrong in a society until literal lynch mobs are roving the streets.
@Full Detail
From her interview, she seems utterly useless with regards to HK:
“So I was due to sit for the first time in February 2020. That was before the National Security Law: there was the Basic Law, a tradition of an independent judiciary in Hong Kong, and the rule of law seemed reasonably secure… Then came covid so I could not go, then came the National Security Law and I thought now it is the time quietly to bow out. In 2021, they did offer to reappoint me. I did not want to suggest that the Hong Kong judiciary was fatally compromised, because it was not. I did not want to suggest that I did not want to be part of that system. I certainly did not want any announcements made, so I decided not to seek reappointment and we put it down to personal reasons.”
Setting aside the fact that her display of spinelessness there would make jellyfish mock her for having less backbone than them, I do wonder at this: “I did not want to suggest that the Hong Kong judiciary was fatally compromised, because it was not.”
To paraphrase the wonderful Rob Newman: the level of naivety necessary before you can believe that sentence cannot normally be found anywhere outside of 1970s porno films. ‘Gee, Mister! You mean the time machine only works if I take off all my clothes?’