The Hong Kong government unveils a cunning plan to fight illegal drugs…
Hong Kong plans to rename the drug “space oil” in a bid to reduce its appeal, security chief Chris Tang has said.
Speaking at an anti-drug event on Sunday, Tang said that the authorities would soon give the illegal narcotic a new name because “space oil” glamorises the drug.
…At the Sunday event, the security chief likened the appearance of space oil users to “zombies” and said the government would make an official announcement on the new name soon.
During a meeting with lawmakers last month, Tang suggested calling the substance “zombie oil” to better reflect its effects on users.
…In February, the government renamed “space oil” as “space oil drug” to clarify “its nature as a dangerous drug and its harmful effects.”
…In March, lawmakers proposed setting up a reporting mechanism to flag space oil sellers, but Commissioner for Narcotics Kesson Lee said the authorities had no plans for a hotline, as young people were too “rebellious” for such a system to function well.
Used as an anaesthetic – and in some executions in the US – it is popular among youngsters in Hong Kong and Singapore who add the liquid to e-cigarettes to get an instant and extremely brief sort of high.
But will officially renaming it work? Do bureaucrats even have the power over language to move a population to adopt new wording for things? Back in the 1970s, they tried calling a new MTR station ‘Chater’, before giving up and going with the already accepted ‘Central’. More recently, they (for some reason) listened to complaints from a few residents who felt their district was being tarnished with the name of a seedy area in London, and decreed that Soho would henceforth be known as the ‘Mid-Levels Themed Dining and Restaurant Zone’ (or something of that clunkiness).
But maybe decreeing new nomenclature would be easier in Kowloon and the New Territories.
Could it work the other way round? Could you make something more popular by changing its name? Rather than call it a ‘government policy’, call it a ‘happy fun idea’.
Civil society isn’t exactly what it used to be in Hong Kong, but the state-owned press are still not satisfied. Environmental NGOs Liber and Greenpeace come under fire in Wen Wei Po for ‘soft resistance’…
…through its policy recommendations for Hong Kong’s ecotourism initiatives.
The paper ran a full-page report on Tuesday, accusing the NGO of using “pseudo-science” to challenge the bottom line of national security.
The report also named Greenpeace Hong Kong, which co-hosted a seminar event on ecotourism with Liber and other environmental groups online last month after a local university cancelled their venue booking.
According to the Wen Wei Po report, Liber “has been using pseudo-science as ‘camouflage’ to spread untruthful comments to vilify the government.”
…Addressing the “soft resistance” accusation, Wong said: “We are just conducting research and making suggestions for the benefit of Hong Kong’s people and environment.”
Is Wen Wei Po upset that the NGOs found government ‘happy fun ideas’ for eco-tourism might allow developers to build housing on sensitive sites? Is the paper angry that the groups went ahead with their forum online, after Chinese U cancelled the venue? Are they running out of targets? Or do they see alternative proposals as a challenge to state power?
Would it hurt if bureaucrats sat down and read through Liber’s papers, and maybe even considered amending plans if the think-tank identifies room for improvement in government initiatives? Would that help enhance governance – or does listening to outside opinions threaten national security?
Is not listening to suggestions and making improvements some kind of soft resistance trying to undermine the success of the government’s governance ? Ah truly soft resistance is everywhere and hiding in unexpected places.
“Are they running out of targets?”
It was entirely predictable, and was predicted in this space, that the thousands of super-secret NatSec agents would quickly run out of things to do in this peaceful city and would necessarily have to widen the definition of what constituted a threat in order to justify their existence.
This is going to play out for years and years.
“…or does listening to outside opinions threaten national security?”
The question answers itself, comrade.
Zombie Oil is a cooler name than Space Oil.
This isn’t the first time the government has gone after Liber. They’re the last truly independent think tank and they have a talent for poking the government’s sore spots and bringing receipts. Satellite imagery documentation of brownfield rural destruction – Liber. Thorough accounting of neglected government sites in the middle of a housing crisis – Liber. Comparative international study of artificial island projects (hint: they don’t usually go well) – Liber. Even more frightening for the government, Liber has intellectual roots in the anti-XRL land justice movement, whose figurehead Chu Hoi Dick they’ve thrown in jail. By comparison, Greenpeace, a foreign environmental stunt group, is a trivial concern.
If the government can’t find some crime to imprison Liber for, they’re going to starve them out by making them too politically radioactive for the non-profit world to fund or associate with.
The ironic thing about the proposed name change is that most of us had never heard of space oil in the first place until the government started making such a big ballyhoo about it. In any case, drug-using subcultures will make up their own street names for drugs regardless of what the government chooses to call them.
Chater was not the only renamed MTR station—Yau Ma Tei was originally known as Waterloo.
Yikes! “Waterloo” wouldn’t have been particularly auspicious!
“a rose by any other name would smell as sweet”
The locals pronounce “Chater” (as in Chater House) as “chatter”. Oh, those locals!
The original name of Central was Victoria. That’s no secret.