HKFP reports…
All Hong Kong restaurant licences will include national security clauses from September, Secretary for Environment and Ecology Tse Chin-wan has said.
…According to an FEHD letter sent to restaurants, entertainment premises, and other businesses last year, business licence holders and “related persons” who engage in “offending conduct” against national security or the public interest could see their licences revoked. “Related persons” include directors, management, employees, agents, and subcontractors, the letter read.
…Some eatery owners told Ming Pao last year that they feared the new conditions were too vague and that they could lose their licences over false allegations.
However, Chief Executive John Lee said the FEHD was bound by law to safeguard national security, and the “offending conduct” against national security is “clearly stated” in the conditions.
RTHK story…
The clauses, [Tse] added, act as a constant reminder to restaurant managers and staff to protect national security.
So far, no restaurants have been found breaking the NatSec rules, but maybe this will be a way to eradicate ‘yellow’ shops.
Does anyone have a clue how a restaurant in Hong Kong can endanger the national security of the PRC – a nuclear power with the world’s second-mightiest military force? (Food poisoning?) And why insert special clauses into business licenses when NatSec laws already apply to every individual and organization in the city?
What other corporate activities need to be specifically required not to threaten the nation’s security? Bookstores we’ve done of course. But hairdressers? Laundries? Chiropodists? Cake shops? Kindergartens? (Whoops – kindergartens are already on board. Sorry.)
A Twitter thread on people who visit China for a few days and declare themselves experts. On medical costs in China: I was reading Deadly Quiet City by Murong Xuecun about Wuhan during the Covid outbreak – seriously depressing.
East, drink, and be wary.