For fans of irony: according to reports, one of the books that allegedly endanger national security is Let Only Red Flowers Bloom by Emily Feng. (English edition published by hotbed of subversion Penguin.)
From the Wall Street Journal…
Hong Kong was once home to one of Asia’s most freewheeling book markets, with shops selling everything from exposes of the 1989 Tiananmen crackdown to critiques of the deadly famine precipitated by the Great Leap Forward in the early 1960s.
But in the years since Beijing began tightening its grip on the city, Chinese authorities have targeted publishers and bookshops as part of its effort to stamp out dissent.
The latest incident came this week, when Hong Kong police raided two independent bookstores for carrying what authorities branded as seditious books.
One of the bookshops, Have a Nice Stay, which once carried books on protest movements in Hong Kong and mainland China as well as tomes by Chinese dissidents, also said this week that it would shut. It was impossible to operate given the lack of a lack of clarity on what books might violate the law, it said, noting security officials wouldn’t specify which books are illegal.
…A handful of small bookshops have persisted despite the crackdown, keeping out of sight books on more sensitive topics like China’s history and leadership, particularly those published overseas. The authorities have accused those shops of promoting “soft resistance” to the government, arresting staff in March and June for allegedly carrying seditious works. Pro-Beijing media had previously accused the shops of carrying a biography of Lai and works by dissident cartoonist Zunzi it said vilified the government and extolled the 2019 protests.
On Monday the state-controlled Wen Wei Po newspaper accused a handful of small booksellers of carrying works that “smeared the country and the Communist Party,” including works by a former Apple Daily columnist and another by the former head of the Hong Kong Journalists Association.
(Interesting how much CCP papers Wen Wei Po and Ta Kung Pao seem to guide the NatSec Police in these matters. Also that Zunzi, who worked for Ming Pao up until three years ago when officials complained his satirical cartoons were ‘inaccurate’, is now classed as a dissident.)
NYT…
Earlier this month, the Hong Kong government barred the Elmbook and Luckwin bookstores from exhibiting at the Hong Kong Book Fair, Yalkun Uluyol, a China researcher for Human Rights Watch, said in a statement.
Last month, the authorities arrested two employees at Hunter Bookstore on suspicion of “sedition.” In March, the police arrested four employees at Book Punch under the same allegations. Mr. Uluyol said that both bookstores were said to have carried a biography of Jimmy Lai, a jailed pro-democracy media tycoon…
Hong Kong authorities have also launched tax audits on at least six independent bookstores since late 2023, according to Human Rights Watch. The scrutiny is part of what experts said is an attempt to silence dissent since antigovernment protests engulfed Hong Kong in 2019.
“Independent bookstores are among the few remaining spaces where people can encounter ideas, build social ties and sustain an intellectual public,” said Victoria Hui, an associate professor specializing in Chinese politics at the University of Notre Dame. “So targeting both an established bookseller and one founded by journalists displaced by the media crackdown fits a broader pattern of dismantling Hong Kong’s civil society.”
The Washington Post…
“The moves against bookstores [are] part of an ongoing struggle for the hearts and minds of young people in Hong Kong,” said Jeffrey Wasserstrom, a historian of modern China at the University of California at Irvine. Pro-democracy movements in the city have been driven by young protesters, Wasserstrom said.
From NBC (which also uses the HKFP pic)…
Amnesty International’s Asia deputy regional director Sarah Brooks said the use of “sedition” offenses to target bookstores demonstrated how the city’s national security framework “is being weaponized to silence dissenting voices and eradicate spaces for free thought.”
“This year’s escalating attacks on Hong Kong’s independent bookstores hammer home the chilling reality of what the city has become: a place where you can be criminalized simply for what’s on your bookshelf,” she said.
Authorities say the national security laws are crucial for the city’s stability. Hong Kong’s Secretary for Security Chris Tang has said the government will not set up a list of banned books, saying it would be pointless to implement in reality.
AP’s report suggests that the authorities want to leave it unclear which books threaten national security…
“If you are a bookseller, you have the responsibility to make sure the books you sell won’t endanger national security,” he said. “It’s equal to, for example, when you are selling food, you need to ensure the food won’t cause a stomach ache and is not either poison or illegal.”
Asked if authorities would make a list of banned books, Tang said that would not be conducive to effective law enforcement targeting titles that “intend to harm the country.”
“We will not let criminals off the hook like this,” he said.
So informing people what is or isn’t illegal is ‘letting criminals off the hook’?
From Focus Taiwan…
President Lai Ching-te (賴清德) on Thursday expressed solidarity with independent bookstore owners and urged the Hong Kong government to respect diverse views after authorities raided two bookstores and arrested five people a day earlier.
“Every independent bookstore is an important bastion for ideas,” Lai wrote in a social media post.
…Referring to Taiwan’s martial law era, when publications were censored and freedom of expression was suppressed, Lai said Taiwan understood that freedom and democracy had not come easily.
“We would like to express our concern and respect to all bookstore staff and cultural workers who stand their ground in adversity. Words and ideas should not be shackled by political pressure,” Lai wrote.
“ So informing people what is or isn’t illegal is ‘letting criminals off the hook’?”
It works similar to obscenity law in the US: you know it when you see it. If it criticises the Party-State or its proxies and causes any sort of upset to thin skinned officials or their oversensitive Party handlers then it is a seditious book.
It sucks that these restrictions exist now and that this public freedom space is completely obliterated, but it’s also pretty easy to steer clear from trouble as a private citizen. Singapore has very similar media restrictions and they are equality sensitive on criticism. This is the new HK like or not.
‘What right did they have?’
‘Catch-22.’
‘What?’ Yossarian froze in his tracks with fear and alarm and felt his whole body begin to tingle. ‘What did you say?’
‘Catch-22’ the old woman repeated, rocking her head up and down. ‘Catch-22. Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can’t stop them from doing.’
‘What the hell are you talking about?’ Yossarian shouted at her in bewildered, furious protest. ‘How did you know it was Catch-22? Who the hell told you it was Catch-22?’
‘The soldiers with the hard white hats and clubs. The girls were crying. “Did we do anything wrong?” they said. The men said no and pushed them away out the door with the ends of their clubs. “Then why are you chasing us out?” the girls said. “Catch-22,” the men said. “What right do you have?” the girls said. “Catch-22,” the men said. All they kept saying was “Catch-22, Catch-22.” What does it mean, Catch-22? What is Catch-22?’
‘Didn’t they show it to you?’ Yossarian demanded, stamping about in anger and distress. ‘Didn’t you even make them read it?’
‘They don’t have to show us Catch-22,’ the old woman answered. ‘The law says they don’t have to.’
‘What law says they don’t have to?’
‘Catch-22.’
@Mark Bradley
Free speech laws in the U.S. have taken on much greater definitional clarity since Justice Potter Stewart wrote in 1964, “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced by the term ‘hard core pornography’, and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case [Louis Malle’s The Lovers] is not that.”
Ironically, Justice Stewart used the phrase to allow the freedom of expression, whilst our local authorities wield it to restrict expression.
Can the clowns currently running the NatSec regime be recommended to be brought up on charges for doing the TOTAL OPPOSITE of “Telling Good Stories of Hong Kong” and bringing shame and negative attention to the territory??
@F. Lee Bailey Indeed. You’ll have no argument from me on any of that. Thank you for further elaborating.
Thank you, Rose, for the Joseph Heller quote. It’s certainly apt in the HK context. The fractured logic of Catch 22 registered with readers when it was first published 65 years ago, and (sadly) still has an almost universal resonance today.