If T-shirts can threaten national security, presumably movies can…
A total of 50 films have been required to be edited, and 13 titles have not been approved for screening on national security grounds since Hong Kong amended the Film Censorship Ordinance in 2021, according to authorities.
What were the films? The authorities won’t say. Why were they censored? Which parts were cut? Again, they won’t say. So how can anyone know whether showing a film would be illegal?
A 68-year-old man appears in court accused of helping his ‘absconder’ daughter…
…the father of wanted activist Anna Kwok Fung-yee allegedly attempted to manage his daughter’s insurance policy…
The case marks the first prosecution for attempting to handle the financial assets of a designated absconder under Article 23, and the first time a fugitive’s family member has faced such charges.
…A prosecution witness, insurance agent Cheng, told the court that the defendant approached her in January seeking to cancel his daughter’s policy. Cheng said she informed the father that the policyholder’s signature was required. The defendant later claimed he would meet his daughter overseas and, about a month afterward, submitted documents bearing her signature.
The defendant’s 28-year-old daughter, Anna Kwok Fung-yee, is wanted for subversion and collusion with foreign forces to endanger national security. Authorities have offered a HK$1 million reward for information leading to the US-based activist’s arrest.
He is apparently pleading not guilty. It will be interesting to see what happens. Just what sort of punishment is appropriate for conveying your daughter’s insurance paperwork?
“So how can anyone know whether showing a film would be illegal?”
Exactly. The lines must be kept blurry, or invisible, to ensure anyone can be found guilty of anything at any time, and to discourage wrongthink. Lawfare is the new normal. Not just here.
If the Standard story that you linked to is accurate, it raises a lot of questions. For example, are insurance companies required to submit details of all policies that they sell to the government and update the government regarding changes to them during the term of the policy? If so, was the insurance agent coerced into testifying against his customer? If not, was the insurance agent try to curry favor with the government by ratting out his customer? Also, if the policy was bought and paid for by the father, what is the problem? Enquiring minds want to know….
By the way, do large numbers of Mainlanders still come to Hong Kong to buy insurance policies?
And conversely, what punishment is appropriate for a father doing what fathers do, under great duress, to protect and assist their family?
Had the insurance company continued to maintain the policy, would they not also have been in danger of falling foul of nation security legislation?
That insurance agent is a street rat. I’m guessing the point of canceling the policy was to see some funds returned? Otherwise it’s not even worth messing with.
Also how wonderful that the nanny state banned 13 films on NSL grounds. So basically no more spy thrillers, films like “Ten Years”, or anything with a political or protest angle.
@ Young Charles
It’s just fine for the insurance company to continue receiving premiums from the ‘absconder’. But paying out could be a mortal threat to the security of the nation.
Go figure.
@Young Charles hits the nail on the head. if that’s not collusion, what is? this is a messy business for a financial centre to get into.
Most likely scenario is that relatives are being closely monitored, phones, internet, mailbox, bank accounts, etc. There are hundreds of NS snooops on the loose, remember the revelations about all those hotel rooms. And thats just the imported hands.
The insurance agent was probably leaned on to be a witness.
“The insurance agent was probably leaned on to be a witness.”
The insurance agent is still a street rat. I have very low regard for the opportunistic scum that are insurance agents even when they aren’t being snitches for the State.
From Samuel Bickett…
The insurance agent, who was just doing his job, was interrogated for 14 hours by the National Security Department and threatened with prosecution if he didn’t testify.
https://x.com/SamuelBickett/status/1975933622935777375