Hong Kong in 2024 had more suicides than in any year since 2003 – when the city endured the depths of the post-97 property crash, SARS, a mass protest against the proposed Arttcle 23 NatSec law, and the death of Anita Mui. Among the suicides, Leslie Cheung leapt from the Mandarin Oriental and another (pretty sure it was 2003) was a young overweight woman with no friends who threw herself from her family apartment after her father chucked her pet hamster away. For some reason, that two-para story stuck with me.
The SCMP says…
The Samaritan Befrienders Hong Kong released the findings of its analysis of the Coroner’s Court’s data, which showed a 4 per cent rise in the number of deaths from suicide compared with 2023. It urged society to maintain its focus on mental health and called for enhanced preventive efforts and support services.
Heymans Wong Hon-chi, the organisation’s chairman, said the suicide rate hit 15.1 per 100,000 people last year, the highest since 2003, adding that there were about 3.12 suicide deaths per day in Hong Kong on average.
He said the suicide rate among men aged 30 to 39 rose from 19.05 in 2023 to 24.38 last year. The rate for men aged 40 to 49 increased from 22.06 to 27.46.
“Men generally pay close attention to the economy and their employment prospects. We all know that the overall economic situation last year was not at its best or most ideal,” Wong said.
Chris Yeung at Voice of Hong Kong foresees ‘constitutional chaos’ in Hong Kong as lawmakers oppose government efforts to allow some basic rights for same-sex couples following a court ruling…
The John Lee administration has only themselves to blame. Their failure to attempt to consult the lawmakers on their proposal before putting it forward in a paper has added fuel to the fire. Worse, it makes a mockery of their repeated vows to foster closer ties with the legislature.
…During the meeting on Thursday, many members in the “all-patriots” Legislative Council slammed the proposal, “calling it an attack on the institution of marriage.” Leaders of major political parties were furious, accusing the government of lacking consultation.
…As same-sex marriage is not recognised in the mainland, political correctness seems to have further hardened the stance of the two major pro-Beijing parties, namely the DAB and FTU, on LGBTQ rights.
Intriguingly, the two major Beijing-backed dailies, Ta Kung Pao and Wen Wei Po, have not touched on the government proposal in their editorials as of Saturday. Some columnists in pro-Beijing media have called for a calm debate, saying the government plan was a “middle-of-the-road” solution.
Whether Beijing has a view on the government plan and, if so, what it is, is still unclear. But so far, there are no signs of Beijing intervening through an interpretation of the Basic Law as Junius Ho Kwan-yiu, a legislator, has suggested. The chance of it is slim.
…The proposal has emerged as the first looming clash between the Lee team and the legislature with the judiciary being blamed by some pro-Beijing figures as the trouble-maker.
If the plan is vetoed, it will deal a blow to the executive-led system and a slap on the face of the CFA. The government may face fresh challenges in courts for its failure to uphold LGBTQ rights.
Most Hong Kong people are laid back about this issue – not out of ‘woke’ convictions so much as a traditional disinterest in other people’s affairs. So why do so many ‘all-patriot’ lawmakers have this hang-up about gay rights? Could it be that some are overtly homophobic, or at least pro-’family values’, as a way to mask their own moral shortcomings? Is there an anti-Western sentiment at play? Is this an opportunity to bash judicial independence?
As for Beijing officials, it is unlikely that they see this as a priority one way or another. Communist parties have always had a puritan streak, but Beijing’s real worry – in Hong Kong or the Mainland – would probably be the formation of independent social or political movements. For there lies the road to ‘soft resistance’ and thence ‘challenging the government’. That goes for lawmakers: ultimately, the DAB and others will do what they are told, and there will be no ‘constitutional chaos’.
Maybe one day some of these lawmakers will come to terms with themselves, emerge from the closet, and start up a United Front gay group. Or maybe not.
HK Labour Rights Monitor on the fifth anniversary of the NatSec Law…
Five years ago, Beijing imposed the Hong Kong National Security Law (NSL), under the pretext of safeguarding “national security”, to silence dissent and dismantle civil society. In 2025, the Hong Kong government further tightened its grip, fast-tracking amendments to the Trade Union Ordinance, effectively locking down independent union activities. Under relentless political purges, draconian laws, and constant administrative harassment, independent unions in Hong Kong are now on the verge of collapse.
Christopher Mung, Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Labour Rights Monitor, remarked: “In these five years, the right to organise, once protected under Hong Kong’s Basic Law, has been systematically dismantled.”
The amended Trade Union Ordinance grants the Registrar sweeping powers: unions can now be denied registration on vague “national security” grounds, foreign funding is strictly banned unless pre-approved, and anyone convicted of “endangering national security” is permanently barred from forming unions.
…At least 16 union leaders have been arrested, jailed or placed on wanted lists for national security-related offences. Notable cases include former Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions (HKCTU) Secretary-General Lee Cheuk Yan, who has been held in custody awaiting trial for four years, and former Hospital Authority Employees Alliance chairperson Winnie Yu, sentenced to 81 months in prison. Even overseas leaders have not escaped — Mung himself has had his passport cancelled, is labelled a “fugitive”, and now faces a bounty.
More on the Trade Unions (Amendment) Ordinance from the IFJ…
…the law imposes broad and vague restrictions that weaponise national security rhetoric to dismantle independent labour organising. Under the amended ordinance, trade unions can now be denied registration on undefined national security grounds without the right to appeal beyond an expensive and inaccessible judicial review. It also permanently bars individuals convicted of ‘endangering national security’ from forming or leading unions.
The Registrar of Trade Unions is granted sweeping new investigative powers, including warrantless entry into union premises and seizure of documents. Foreign funding is prohibited without prior approval, and unions must notify Hong Kong’s Chief Executive before affiliating with any overseas organisations.
HKFP op-ed on ‘soft resistance’…
Soft resistance, said [Justice Secretary] Paul Lam, has three main elements: making false or misleading statements, expressing them irrationally with emotional bias, and having the intention to create misunderstandings about the Chinese or Hong Kong governments and their policies.
This looks like an extension of the law on subversion, already unmoored from its Common Law attachment to the provocation of violence. If this were the case, it would still leave a variety of tricky questions. For example, would sincere belief in the truth of the statement complained of be a defence?
Razven HK on Patreon – on DIU…
To put it simply, at least 3 people, including a 15 year old will now face up to 10 years behind bars for being part of a group that nobody’s heard of, researching how to get overseas support but not actually having any and wanting to organise but actually haven’t done so.
I recently watched “The Lives of Others,” an outstanding film about life under the Stasi in East Germany. One of the film’s plot lines is about how the authorities stopped publishing suicide statistics.
I was surprised to learn those statistics are still available in Hong Kong.
1) “The Samaritan Befrienders Hong Kong released the findings of its analysis of the Coroner’s Court’s data, which showed a 4 per cent rise in the number of deaths from suicide compared with 2023.”
“Soft Resistance” against NatSecLaw? How long before Samaritan Befrienders HK gets harassed to the point of disbanding, calling it quits and surrendering any funds it has in banks?
2) “The John Lee administration has only themselves to blame. Their failure to attempt to consult the lawmakers on their proposal before putting it forward in a paper has added fuel to the fire. Worse, it makes a mockery of their repeated vows to foster closer ties with the legislature.”
Seriously? Who needs LegCo in HK now, even as a pretend body that shows HK has some kind of “people’s” governance? Just disband it already and save millions. It’s usually the most virulent anti whatever types that turn out to be the ones with many skeletons in the closet.
Can we criticise these bigots for “an attack on the institution of love”?
I’m not sure there’s much to be read into the suicide statistics. The UK has a lower suicide rate, for example, but I know that UK coroners are very reluctant to give a verdict of suicide, so many are classed as ‘death by misadventure’.
@Marius having done some charitable work in this area, I’d suspect there is also a similar reluctance in HK – probably most places. On a related note, Bowtie was notable in that they removed most life insurance pay out exclusions like criminal activity, drugs, suicide, war, terrorism (and a few others) back in 2021. When consulting in conflict zones for a HK based company, Bowtie became the go-to provider for these reasons (and probably others that only the Finance people consider).