The Hong Kong government announces HK$200,000 bounties for no fewer than 15 people accused of ‘subversion’ (and other stuff) for taking part in elections for a ‘Hong Kong Parliament’ that few have ever heard of, probably because it doesn’t really exist…
…[the group] held unofficial polls outside of the city to form a shadow legislature to “pursue the ideal of Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong.”
The group also vowed to “uphold the core value of popular sovereignty,” as well as “oppose one-party rule and tyranny.”
…Police said if an offender turns themselves in and “truthfully confesses” to their crimes, they may be granted a lighter or reduced sentence.
“Police urge the wanted individuals to turn back before it’s too late. We hope they will seize the opportunity to surrender themselves in Hong Kong and not continue down the wrong path,” the police said in a statement issued in Chinese.
The government press release says…
The “Hong Kong Parliament” aims to subvert state power; its objectives include promoting “self-determination”, promulgating the so-called “Hong Kong Constitution”, and overthrowing or undermining the basic system of the People’s Republic of China established by the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China or overthrowing the body of the central power of People’s Republic of China or the body of power of the HKSAR with unlawful means, thereby suspected of committing the offence of “Subversion” contrary to Article 22 of the Hong Kong National Security Law.
Several of the suspects (details here) already have HK$1 million bounties on them. The fact that the rewards this time are just 200 grand suggests that even the authorities don’t regard the group’s activities as an especially mortal threat to the PRC’s national security. (I could invite a few friends over, and we could all sit around the table and declare ourselves the ‘Hong Kong Parliament’ – the sovereign power would carry on as if nothing was happening.)
Angry-ish (no ‘despicable’) government press release on UK officials’ criticism of the bounties’ thing,,,
A spokesman for the HKSAR Government said, “Endangering national security is a very serious offence. No country will watch with folded arms on acts and activities that endanger national security. The ‘Hong Kong Parliament’ aims to subvert state power; its objectives include promoting ‘self-determination’, promulgating the so-called ‘Hong Kong Constitution’, and overthrowing or undermining the basic system of the [China]…”
“…It is both necessary and legitimate, and is also in line with those of other countries and regions around the world … Those absconders hiding in the UK and other Western countries are wanted because they continue to blatantly engage in activities endangering national security. More so, they continue to collude with external forces to cover for their evil deeds. It is necessary for the Police to take all lawful measures to strongly combat the acts of abscondment, and such actions are fully justified, necessary and legitimate.
‘Angry-ish’ perhaps because the UK is considering allowing extraditions to Hong Kong (though presumably it would only apply to cases where the alleged offence is a crime in Britain).
Swiftly followed by another…
The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) today (July 27) strongly opposed and disapproved of smears with distorted facts by government officials and politicians from countries like the United States, Canada and Australia, as well as anti-China organisations, on HKSAR’s lawful act to pursue wanted persons endangering national security absconding from Hong Kong. Not only did such foreign government officials and politicians, as well as anti-China organisations, turned a blind eye to illegal acts of criminals, but also deliberately smeared and spread irresponsible remarks, in an attempt to mislead the public, about the measures and actions taken by the HKSAR Government in accordance with the law. The HKSAR Government strongly disapproved of such acts.
An HKFP op-ed ponders the question of how NatSec police caught the 18-year-old who wrote seditious graffiti on the wall of a China Hong Kong City men’s room. The investigation presumably started after someone reported the presence of such a message. The writer rules out the installation of cameras inside toilet cubicles. Assuming that’s the case (hmm…), the police must have used CCTV outside the restroom, positioned so it showed the faces of everyone entering or leaving. Then, they would need to station at least one cop there everyday to check the walls of the stalls for fresh scribblings every time after someone had used the facilities. Since they would probably have had more than one plain-clothes man hanging around at any given time (the same guy lingering all the time would raise suspicions), we could be talking hundreds of man-hours.
(I wonder what the cops themselves thought of having to do this. Did they ask themselves if this is what they signed up for when they joined the force?)
An SCMP op-ed looks at restaurant closures and pleads for lower rents…
Former Hong Kong chief executive Leung Chun-ying … has been trying to talk sense into landlords. Last month, he called on them to cut rents or risk missing out. This month, he warned of the “sheer self-delusion” of holding out for high rents.
…Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu has been calling for Hong Kong’s traditional industries to innovate … But, unlike Leung, Lee has not really addressed the elephant in the room: rent. If we understand Leung correctly, he is in effect telling landlords they must change their ways or businesses could perish in this economic environment.
The brilliant songwriter Tom Lehrer has died at the age of 96. He has left his work to all of us. My father introduced me to his songs when I was around 12. ‘In the land of the boll weevil, where the laws are medieval’ (here).
So tax empty units (commercial or residential) to the hilt and stop subsidising trips to Shenzhen.
Might stem the bleeding, doesn’t address the real problem that the middle class has been hollowed out, and that the diners now spend their money in London, Vancouver, Melbourne etc.
A population of elderly dotards worrying whether the hot pot will burn through their colostomy bags isn’t going to cut it.
If only we had some kind of parliament to debate these matters …
Last I checked the right to SELF determination is like the first article of the ICCPR and ICESCR both which are signed and ratified by Hong Kong and is constitutionally binding by article 39 of the basic law. It is not a national security crime despite the authorities treating it as such.
But the NSL apparatus act like this is subverting state power even though NSL itself states that rights need to be protected by ICCPR the courts just gloss over it and let the authorities do whatever if it involves so called “national security”
As the HK government presser says every country has national security law but free countries don’t arrest and imprison people for wearing the wrong T shirt, singing a song, or lighting up a candle on national security grounds.
On an unrelated note, does anyone know when that Taiwan tv drama about mainland invading Taiwan is supposed to air?
Hong Kong governance has improved dramatically since the cowardly hated racist oppressive duplicitous colonialist dictatorship was chased off in 1997. Go China!
The toilet janitor could have been the snitch. Isn’t there price money for snitching?
Seems just as likely cops simply follow everyone young person into the loo. With one cop for every 70 or so residents under 30, there are certainly enough of them to do it. This, of course, excludes secret police and those looking for a payout from the snitch line.
“After 1997, Hong Kong will not practice a socialist system, nor will a Communist Party secretary be sent to govern Hong Kong. We will not impose the mainland system on Hong Kong.”
Lu Ping, 1996,
At that time, director of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office HKMAO
…….pants on fire!
Re their op-ed on restaurant closures and high rents… the current incarnation of the SCMP truly has its finger on the pulse of HK. It’s not like anyone else has noticed this issue in the last 25 years.
Some may argue for taxing empty property as a solution, but we all know that will never happen here. A Cultural Revolution approach will yield quick results. Those new surveillance lamp posts should support the weight of a landlord or two, no?
I make joke, comrade. Just joke. Let’s go back to pretending we’re a contender for UNESCO city of gastronomy, whatever good that’s supposed to do (and whatever realities that denys).
Note that the while Legco can pass complicated legislation that comes with significant impact on the community in a few hours, our prurient legislators are currently taking days to debate the bill granting limited legal rights to same-sex couples that most citizens do not give a fuck about.
With 90 members statistically around a half a dozen are gay.
@Mary Melville
Live and let live is practically the definition of HK culture.
However, if the LGBTQ+ community insists on pushing its agenda in the face of HK residents, it will discover that same-sex relationships are not approved of by the majority of HKers. Like it or not, the conservative legislators who oppose same-sex marriages are an accurate reflection of the values of the majority of HK society.
@Harvey Milk
“However, if the LGBTQ+ community insists on pushing its agenda in the face of HK residents, it will discover that same-sex relationships are not approved of by the majority of HKers. Like it or not, the conservative legislators who oppose same-sex marriages are an accurate reflection of the values of the majority of HK society.”
A 2023 survey showed 60% support, with 17% opposed and 23% neutral to same sex marriage.
@Mark Bradley
The 2023 telephone survey you cite, conducted by a “sexualities research program” and a “human rights law program, achieved a mere 11% response rate, which casts considerable doubt on the results, as Grok explains below:
“An 11% Response Rate is low, as it means only 11% of the sampled individuals responded. Low response rates increase the risk of nonresponse bias, where those who respond differ systematically from those who don’t (e.g., in demographics, opinions, or behaviors). This can skew results if nonrespondents have different characteristics or views relevant to the survey’s purpose.”
The low response rate, combined with a 20% non-cooperation rate of those who did respond, imperils the reliability of the results and runs a high risk of producing statistics from an unrepresentative sample of the overall population, even if standard statistical methodology was used to weight the results for demographic factors.
In other words, it’s likely the researchers went looking for the answers they wanted and, mirabile dictu, they found them.
@Harvey Milk
Were it a single survey, you’d be laughing, but it’s not a single survey — it’s three:
“The team conducted a telephone survey of Hong Kong residents in 2013, repeated the survey in 2017, and repeated it again earlier this year [2023].”
So the significant result is that using the same methodology, 60% of Hong Kong people said they supported same-sex marriage in 2023, up from 50.4% in 2017 and 38% in 2013 (which would have been an extremely disappointing start if, as you assert, “the researchers went looking for the answers they wanted and, mirabile dictu, they found them”).
So how ever unrepresentative a single survey may be, there’s still a demonstrated upwards trend in accepting same-sex marriage over the decade, that can’t be explained away using your argument. So the only intellectually honest conclusion is: “that’s interesting, further study required.”
Ironically, by asking for answers about same-sex marriage surveys to be generated by a machine recently rebranded as “unwoke” that calls itself Mechahitler, and then treating them as gospel, your accusation that the researchers are looking for the answers they wanted and finding them comes across as a bit of a projection. “Every accusation is a confession.”
@oil,
The methodological flaw in the survey has been embedded since its inception: the researchers purposely ignored huge swathes of the HK population who might disagree with their predetermined conclusions, and then went ahead and asked their questions of narrow segments of the populations who were likely to agree with their predetermined conclusions.
Because of that, he survey results are shit.
If you don’t believe me, ask five people you know over the age of 40 who have children and see what they say.
“If you don’t believe me, ask five people you know over the age of 40 who have children and see what they say.”
Wow, Harvey! Talk about scientific.
@Red Dragon
Facts are stubborn things.
Objectively, the same-sex research is riven with bias. Its methodology is deeply flawed and its conclusions are therefore are highly unreliable.
Asking five people you know who are over 40 and are married with children is probably at least as scientific as the biased telephone survey cited above.