Bloomberg reports that Chinese officials have summoned the US Hong Kong consul-general…
…and urged the US to immediately cease all interference in Hong Kong and Beijing’s internal affairs.
The meeting followed a March 26 security alert from the US consulate general warning that it is now a criminal offense for anyone, including US citizens, to refuse to provide police with passwords or decryption access for personal electronic devices.
“In addition, the Hong Kong government also has more authority to take and keep any personal devices, as evidence, that they claim are linked to national security offenses,” the alert said.
…The Hong Kong government also expressed “strong dissatisfaction with misleading information and sweepingly generalised descriptions” of the new rules by foreign organizations and media.
How is issuing advice to your own citizens ‘interfering’ in Hong Kong and Beijing’s internal affairs?
As for dissatisfaction about overseas media, here’s a long, highly wrought government complaint about commentary on the NatSec Law updates, expressing…
…strong dissatisfaction with the misleading information and sweepingly generalised descriptions by certain foreign organisations and politicians, anti-China organisations and media…
Which was swiftly followed by a WSJ editorial…
On Monday Hong Kong Chief Executive John Lee announced new national-security rules, effective immediately. Police can demand passwords from anyone suspected of violating the national-security law that outlaws dissent. They can also demand passwords from suspects’ interlocutors. And they can order family members, employers or anyone else who knows suspects’ passwords or decryption methods to provide them.
“A person is not excused from complying with the requirement on the ground that to do so” could “tend to incriminate the person” or would breach “an obligation as to secrecy” or “any other restrictions on the disclosure of information,” the new rules say.
Failure to comply is a crime punishable by up to a year in prison. Attorney-client privilege isn’t an excuse to refuse disclosing passwords. And once police make a demand, the subject must hand over the data and then seek a court order to make certain correspondence inadmissable at trial.
Watch for the Communist Party to use the new rule as another way to target the Hong Kong-based families of dissidents who live abroad. Parents may now be forced to choose between prison time and helping Hong Kong authorities fish for evidence to bring national-security charges against their children.
If police claim an employee is a suspect, they can now force an employer to provide full access to work accounts. Authorities can then trawl through phones and inboxes for correspondence or anything else.
In its weekly Monitor newsletter, HKFP offers some background on Hong Kong’s hazy book-banning…
Political titles have been quietly removed from the city’s library shelves since the Beijing-imposed national security law was passed in June 2020.
In 2021, HKFP reported that 29 books about the 1989 Tiananmen crackdown had been axed from libraries.
In 2023, local media reported that hundreds of titles had been pulled from libraries – most were related to democracy and protests in Hong Kong.
At the time, Chief Executive John Lee said the government had a duty to identify books with “bad ideologies.” “Books we are lending to the public are those recommended by the government,” he told the legislature.
But he said the public could still read them of their own accord and buy them at independent bookshops – a statement that may not hold today.
…Besides books disappearing from library shelves, bookstores appear to be exercising greater discretion in what books to stock.
…independent bookstores have spoken about the difficulty of navigating red lines, with some accused by Beijing-backed media of spreading “soft resistance.”
Last year, the House of Hong Kong Literature, a non-profit that promotes the city’s literary scene, halted its book fair, citing “factors beyond our control.”
On Wednesday, Secretary for Security Chris Tang evaded a question from a reporter at the Legislative Council about whether authorities planned to release a “banned book list.”
…pro-establishment lawmakers said it would be beneficial for the government to make clear what books are banned on national security grounds.
Lawmaker Junius Ho said authorities could take reference from the three-tier film classification system, under which movies are categorised as suitable for all ages, not suitable for young persons, and 18+ only.
The government could classify books as “banned,” “problematic but not banned,” and “a bit problematic,” he added.
There are no ‘non-problematic’ books, presumably.
The UK Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs’ six-monthly report on Hong Kong. Pretty much what you’d expect…
…we have continued to see developments that undermine Hong Kong’s political autonomy and pluralism. The Beijing-imposed National Security Law (NSL) continued to expand in scope and practice. Despite assurances that it would target only a “handful” of criminals, Hong Kong authorities made a further 69 arrests in 2025, including for displaying political slogans, peaceful protest and organising petitions.
The Hong Kong authorities also tried to silence criticism overseas. In July, they issued another round of arrest warrants and bounties, including those against members of the Hong Kong diaspora in the UK.
The Hong Kong government’s press statement. Also pretty much what you’d expect, but ratcheted up yet another notch on the mouth-frothing scale…
The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) strongly condemns and must resolutely refute the untruthful remarks, slanders and smears against various aspects of the HKSAR in the so-called six-monthly report on Hong Kong…
A spokesman for the HKSAR Government stressed, “The HKSAR Government strongly condemns and firmly rejects the UK’s attempt through a so-called six-monthly report to make misleading and irresponsible remarks about Hong Kong matters, distort facts and reverse right and wrong, wantonly smear the human rights and rule of law situation of Hong Kong and attempt to interfere in the HKSAR Government’s law-based governance by despicable political maneuvers.
(For fans of such diatribes: an instant response to the so-called UK’s report from Legco.)
Is ‘must resolutely refute’ a new one? We need fresh ideas like this.
I’m in Australia for the next week or so. A few pics of Rooburgers or something on Twitter/Bluesky. maybe.
Given the length of the report what’s the betting that no one in the HK adminstration (or Beijing) has actually read it yet. Indeed, the length and timing of both tirades (gov’t and Legco) I’d put money on them both being written before the UK report was published.
A lot of people’s data these days is not actually stored on their devices, but off them. Can the police also demand access to your iCloud account/Google Drive, etc.? And how will they know what cloud storage you have?
@Cloudy Weather
I regret to sat that you seem not to have been paying attention.
The police can demand access to anything you own, and if they want it, they’ll have it, or you’ll be picking your toes in Poughkeepsie.
Those are your choices.
> somebody
The Govt says the same thing about everything it perceives as criticism.
They have an online form which generates the response – the Epsilon trusted to fill in the form merely has to suggest a title and a severity of response level. The press statement is then automatically released.
@Cloudy Weather – please don’t give them ideas
You have to wonder if some cheeky entrepreneur will set up book kiosks in the departure areas of airports like San Francisco and London that promotes and advertises: “Books banned in Hong Kong and China! Last chance to read what the authorities are afraid you will learn about!”
Is the government official responsible for composing these angry missives contractually required to include certain words in their responses? I mean, if a “so-called six-monthly report” report is issued every six months, it’s not so-called. It just is.
It’s likely a template, augmented now by AI (which by definition can’t come up with anything original).
Question of The Day:
In view of revelations during the inquiry into the Wong Fuk Court preventable tragedy, why has district councillor Peggy Wong not been suspended????????
@Load Toad
I like the Brave New World reference. And a great term to use on civil servants!
Less than a year after it suceede in reducing the ferry service to Park Island, SHK is back with a further chip chip. Problem is staff shortages, they say ……
http://www.pitcl.com.hk/en/
Park Island Ferry Services Temporary Arrangement
Due to crew shortage, in reviewing and balancing the current utilization and service demand, the ferry services on weekdays (apart from Sat, Sun & Public Holidays) will be temporarily arranged with effect from 08 Apr 2026 as below:
From Park Island Bus Terminus to Central Ferry Pier (No.2) : 17:00 and 19:30
From Central Ferry Pier (No.2) to Park Island Bus Terminus : 17:30 and 20:00
To be replaced by NR338S bus service.
Park Island to Tsuen Wan 08:10 sailing and Tsuen Wan to Park Island Tsuen 08:30 sailing will be cancelled.
Passengers please proceed to Kei Wai Primary School bus stop to take NR331S bus to Tsuen Wan West.
We apologize for any inconvenience caused. HA HA divert more traffic to its own bus services. SHK is majority owner of KMB.
Have the bookies opened the odds on HKR using the oil crisis to further reduce its services to Disco Bay?
Our developers are big on service pledges when they launch mega projects and once the units are sold start to find excuses to withdraw them. The adminstration of course falls into line. And now that residents no longer have district councillors that support them it a heads we win scenario.