Big Lychee, Various Sectors

To a fanfare of scraped barrel bottoms, the Commerce and Economic Development Secretary Algernon Lau encourages Hong Kong’s young entrepreneurs to explore new opportunities in Central Asia, Latin America and Africa…

Speaking at a luncheon hosted by the Chinese General Chamber of Commerce, Yau said he would lead delegations of young entrepreneurs to explore new markets.

“In the future, I will personally lead teams to countries such as Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Hungary to explore new opportunities,” he said.

“We also plan to visit Latin America, but as the region is currently in a turbulent state, we will monitor the situation.

“After that, our focus will turn to Africa. In March, I will attend a World Trade Organisation conference in Cameroon. We will also explore opportunities there.”

Yau also said in a meeting last year with the Angolan ambassador to China, the envoy expressed hopes for deeper economic ties with Hong Kong.

The commerce chief stressed that young entrepreneurs should gain first-hand experience in understanding foreign markets.

“There’s one thing I truly believe: seeing is believing. We hope to give young entrepreneurs the chance to visit these countries with a government delegation, so they can better understand the realities on the ground,” he said.

I guess Hungary is of Central Asian lineage. There’s obviously a BRICS/Belt and Road thing going on here, though Algernon isn’t quoted as mentioning them (nor the Greater Bay Area). If any Hong Kong entrepreneurs are in a position to explore opportunities in these backwaters, it wouldn’t be kids who need Google Maps to get from Narita to downtown Tokyo.

Why do Hong Kong government officials like to urge young citizens to ‘seize’ opportunities overseas? Do they think the city, with its cartels and overpriced rents, has nothing to offer the next generation? Or do these ministers want to rid the place of young talent? Then again – what do the officials know, given that few of them have any experience of running or growing a business, let alone of Kazakhstan or Angola? 

A TransitJam tweet, with photo of people camping out outside a government building… 

…a “queuing gang” takes up all 100 daily quota slots for driving licence applications and then, through its office adjacent to Transport Dept, charges hapless citizens (blocked out by the full quota) $600 for submission.

How difficult is it to require real-name applicants to book ahead for an appointment?

The NYT looks at Chinese people’s reaction to Trump’s abduction of Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro…

Within hours, the discourse online became a proxy debate over China’s power, its limits and its future. For nationalist Chinese, the U.S. military operation had exposed American lawlessness and frustrations in China at what they believe is Beijing’s restraint, particularly on Taiwan. For those venturing criticism of the government, the episode underscored the vulnerability of even entrenched authoritarian leaders.

…Over the years, the Chinese government has lent considerable political and financial support for Mr. Maduro. Mr. Xi’s critics characterized that as a failure of judgment after Mr. Maduro’s capture. The timing, just hours after Mr. Maduro’s meeting with an official Chinese delegation, prompted pointed questions about judgment and state capacity. “Always picking the wrong partner is also a kind of skill,” one comment said.

…In [liberal Chinese intellectuals’] line of thinking, Venezuela is not simply a foreign-policy embarrassment. It’s a case study in what happens when authoritarian rule hardens into stagnation, institutions hollow out and political loyalty outweighs competence. In Chinese debates, the blunt question becomes: Will China become the next Venezuela?

Donald Trump is no stranger to ‘picking the wrong partner’, as with Vladimir Putin and – perhaps now – Delcy Rodriguez and the other Venezuelan crony elites. 

Should the government end the civil service pay freeze imposed last year? Several lawmakers think it should (stories in HKFP, Standard).

Persistent budget deficits suggest that expenditure needs to be trimmed, or revenues increased. It would be useful to know whether (as most people suspect) public-sector remuneration is significantly bloated compared with the private sector. But officials never propose a serious benchmarking exercise* to find out. Instead, civil service pay is routinely adjusted according to a formula that tracks pay in the private sector – ignoring the possibility that the base levels themselves are mismatched. 

That said, we might suspect that officials’ willingness to implement a freeze was an implicit admission that the civil servants are, indeed, overpaid.

In a more representative system, we might expect an objective review of whether or how much public-sector pay levels exceed those in the rest of the workforce. Instead, this will continue to be a political decision driven by fear of ‘bad morale’ – which is perhaps code for a perceived need to buy loyalty among government staff.

China Media Project looks at a survey showing strong support for Xi Jinping among foreigners…

According to follow-up reports by the Global Times and other state media, the survey “selected some important concepts from Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era” (习近平新时代中国特色社会主义思想), and asked foreign respondents for their opinions. Nearly 80 percent reportedly endorsed “building a community with a shared future for mankind” (构建人类命运共同体) and the even more mystifying “lucid waters and lush mountains are invaluable assets” (绿水青山就是金山银山), the Global Times reports. More than 70 percent approve of “comprehensively governing the party with strict discipline” (全面从严治党), “comprehensive deepening of reform” (全面深化改革), and “putting people at the center” (以人民为中心) — all concepts highly specific to the CCP political context and likely to draw blank stares from all but specialists in PRC political discourse.

How did the Global Times survey team manage to obtain such positive general feedback on what are decidedly political obscurities?

And CNN marks the 10th anniversary of the ending of China’s one-child policy.

For diehard enthusiasts of scandal/serious murk, or those who have a taste for the surreal: kung fu movie star Lau Kar-leung’s widow Mary Jane Reimer delivers a one-hour video on the theft of her husband’s remains last year and the sleazy Buddhist/celebrity scene. Includes a peek inside the plundered tomb, plus musings about the disposal of corpses in general, her past exposure of corrupt abbots, weird goings-on at columbariums, triads’ links with Cambodia and Burma, the holding of ashes for ransom, and more. (“Legally, ashes are not considered property under Hong Kong law. They are considered waste.”) As with many expansive works, it is best to dip into it.

There’s something almost nostalgic about all this: post-2019 Hong Kong has lost much of its ‘wacky mayhem’ mojo.

(Standard story from two months ago. Would anyone care to compare and contrast authorities’ attitudes towards corruption in the Buddhist establishment and within the building maintenance industry?)

Speaking of Hong Kong nostalgia on YouTube – a celebration of our proud tradition of lame tourism promotion, from the early 1960s. Yes, it was hackneyed even then.

For anyone out there needing more mind-bending content: the ever-jaunty Nippon TV on the World War II origins of Hello Kitty.

And Mrs Betty Bowers – top 10 tips on how to be a conservative Christian.

HKFP gets 2026 off to a good start, talking with Chiu Yan-loy to get perhaps the best description yet of how rotten the building maintenance industry really is…

The “accompanying bids” tactic, where multiple construction firms are deliberately arranged to lose the tender to “escort” a pre-arranged winner, may have been used in the case of Wang Fuk Court, he added. The dummy firms may then receive kickbacks for their role in the rigging scheme.

Corrupt owners’ corporation committees are also able to influence the outcome of meetings by leveraging their influence and manipulating votes to select rigged bids, Chiu said.

Submitting proxy votes is a common and generally legal tactic that owners’ corporations have used to control the voting process, he added. If a community welfare group affiliated with the owners’ corporation board “hands out small bribes in exchange for a voter authorisation letter, I can’t say that’s illegal.”

The Hong Kong government wishes a Happy New Year to the BBC…

The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) Government yesterday (January 1) strongly condemned the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) for the deliberate unfounded report on Lai Chee-ying’s health condition in an attempt to fabricate facts to mislead the public by intentionally portraying Lai Chee-ying as a victim, with the aim of covering up his numerous wrongdoings and his conviction by the court.

Court’s conviction verdict was entirely free from any political considerations

A spokesperson for the HKSAR Government said, “The court’s reasons for verdict in Lai Chee-ying’s case are 855 pages long, which are fully open for public inspection, and include the court’s analysis of the relevant legal principles and evidence, as well as the reasons for convicting Lai Chee-ying and the three defendant companies in full detail. The court clearly pointed out in the reasons for verdict that Lai Chee-ying was not on trial for his political views or beliefs. The court’s conviction verdict is well-founded and reasoned, fully demonstrating that the court has made its decision on the case strictly in accordance with the law and evidence, free from any interference, and absolutely free of any political considerations.

“The court clearly pointed out that Lai Chee-ying’s only intent, whether pre or post Hong Kong National Security Law (HKNSL), was to seek the downfall of the Communist Party of China, even though the ultimate cost was the sacrifice of the interests of the people of the People’s Republic of China and the HKSAR. Also, the court found that Lai Chee-ying was the mastermind of the conspiracies charged in all three counts, and his actions show his deliberate intent to pursue these conspiracies, which constituted a threat and harm to the national security in the PRC and the HKSAR.”

(What’s happening to definite articles?)

BBC story here, quoting Claire Lai on…

…[her] father’s deteriorating health in prison, saying that his fingernails “sometimes fall off” and his teeth are rotting.

Depressing overview of the state of the world from veteran BBC correspondent John Simpson…

[Bo Xilai] once said to me, “You’ll never understand how insecure a government feels when it knows it hasn’t been elected.”

Commentary from Bloomberg on a possible New Year’s resolution for UK (and other) policymakers, referencing the book All That Glitters by Martin Thorley…

Again and again, parties that appear independent and self-interested on the surface turn out to have connections to the United Front, a Communist Party-controlled network of groups and individuals that are used to advance its aims. Commercial interests grease the wheels, sometimes helping to frame the terms of debate; British politicians are happy to play along, particularly in the unelected House of Lords. No wrongdoing is alleged or nefarious purpose suggested. All the same, if you’re British you may read with a sense of unease. There appears to be an underlying United Front presence mingling with UK elites of various sectors, as Thorley writes. An open and donor-driven political culture makes easy targets for such actors. The impression is of a system being played — expertly.

…The [nuclear power plant] episode shows up a core error in Western perceptions of China — the assumption that the country is a divisible entity composed of divergent interests. Companies, under this framing, can be expected to act according to commercial rationality. The image is by carefully curated design; it’s also false. China isn’t divisible: It’s a unitary Leninist party-state. Everything can be subjugated to the Communist Party’s strategic aims when necessary…

That doesn’t mean that the Communist Party dictates everything that happens. But it has a “latent network,” in Thorley’s words, ready to be activated when needed. And the party that controls this network is both ruthless and deeply antagonistic to the practices and way of life of Western nations: freedom of speech, rule of law, multiparty democracy. A more muscular party state has started to manifest this antipathy with practical actions: crushing Hong Kong’s freedoms, supporting Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, intimidating overseas universities. Cede influence to such a power at your peril.

For fans of eye-catching titles to opinion pieces – Elon Musk Should Rot in Hell.

After Hong Kong starts allowing up to 100 private cars a day to enter the city from the Mainland, a lawmaker complains that some are breaking local rules on tinted windows. That’s not the worst of it. Social media now feature videos of these vehicles (identifiable by special plates) parking illegally and driving badly around town. 

A drop in the ocean, perhaps. But you have to ask why we should add to the city’s existing traffic mess at all. Is the idea to get more vehicles onto the HK-Zhuhai Bridge? Is it just about symbolism – a contrived display of ‘integration’? Or, like the mass-tourism obsession, could it be a form of punishment? (And why on earth would any Mainlander want to go through the hassle of driving here?) The lateral thinker in me wonders if the idea comes from Shenzhen, eager to encourage Hongkongers to spend leisure time over the border, away from their overcrowded and overpriced home? 

How long before there’s a fatality involving one of these cars?

The Guardian talks to director Kiwi Chow about the Tai Po fire and the banning of his latest movie.

“With collusion between officials and businesses, shoddy workmanship, lax oversight, rampant corruption and an unbalanced system, Hong Kong could not uphold professional standards,” he has said. “How long must Hong Kong endure this?”

The construction company that was doing renovation work on the compound at the time of the fire has not commented publicly on the tragedy. The consultancy in charge of the renovations reportedly closed down in the weeks after the fire. Directors from both of the firms have been arrested.

A Hong Kong government spokesperson said authorities were “going all out” to investigate the cause of the fire, and that several people had already been arrested on suspicion of manslaughter.

The fire was the biggest test of Beijing’s grip on Hong Kong since the 2019-20 pro-democracy protests, which were ultimately quelled by the imposition of a fierce national security law. The first sign that Chow was not going to be silenced by this came in 2021, when he released Revolution of Our Times, a two-and-a-half-hour documentary filmed from the frontlines of the protests.

The film, which premiered at the Cannes film festival, took its name from the banned protest slogan: “Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our time”.

Now Chow’s latest film, which stars the legendary Hong Kong actor Anthony Wong, has in effect been banned from public screening.

In theory, Deadline, which was filmed in Taiwan and partly funded by the government there, isn’t as politically sensitive as his earlier works. Set in an unnamed Asian city, it tells the story of an elite private school where students buckle under the heat of intense academic competition. It was released in Taiwan on 7 November.

But Chow believes the authorities are trying to make an example of him personally by refusing to grant approval for the film. “They don’t want to arrest me, but they want to destroy my creative career,” he said.

In answer to the obvious question…

…Chow remains undaunted. He thinks the authorities are unlikely to arrest him, lest they bring more attention to his films. He concedes it could still happen, though. He’s discussed the possibility with his wife and says he would rather use his freedom to speak out while he can.

“Even if we left Hong Kong, the fear would linger,” he says, referring to Beijing’s increasing practices of targeting critics overseas. Instead, he says, “I want to stay in Hong Kong and get used to living with fear.”

Anime Festival Asia (‘Japan Pop Culture Now!’) cancels its planned February convention in Hong Kong. No explanation, but its annual and other activities in Singapore, Jakarta and elsewhere seem to be going ahead with no problem, while Mainland and Hong Kong authorities have been on an anti-Japan kick recently. (No Japanese costumes allowed at a Hangzhou manga exhibition, for example.)

Hong Kong – Asia’s (Non-Japanese) Events Hub.

The Hong Kong government releases a mildly phrased press statement objecting to the World Bank’s Business Ready 2025 Report, in which the city falls out of the top 10 locations. (Report here. Haven’t read it. Looks like a big snore.)

Not a great holiday season for the man in his 70s who was badly injured in Yuen Long on Saturday when – walking on a sidewalk separated from the road by railings – he was hit by a car. The car was a Porsche, complete with tacky spoilers on the back. (Spoilers help keep specialized sports cars in contact with the road surface at high speeds; on city streets, they are also a sign that the vehicle owner might just be an asshole.)

There’s more. The driver, who was arrested ‘on suspicion of dangerous driving causing serious bodily harm’ turns out to be a cop.

Two questions. The car looks like one of these models, costing in the HK$1.5 million range. How can a policeman afford one? Given the generosity of public-sector salaries in Hong Kong, the answer is probably ‘quite easily’. (Online chatter considers it possible that he rented it, or borrowed the thing from a friend of some sort.) More puzzling: why do the Hong Kong transport authorities – which ban e-bikes on public highways – allow cars with top speeds of around 280kph/170mph on the streets of this crowded city?

You won’t see it in Sing Tao or the SCMP – a big investigative piece on the corruption behind the Tai Po tragedy, from the NYT…

…residents of the Wang Fuk Court estate spent years warning Hong Kong officials about a renovation project they feared was becoming dangerous.

The government had ordered repairs on the eight aging towers in the complex. But residents complained they were paying extortionate sums for shoddy work that used flammable materials, and they suspected it was because a corrupt syndicate had taken over the project.

They told the authorities that the leaders of the owners’ board and the construction firms were acting at times against residents’ interests and safety. They told local news media that a politician was most likely working with the board’s leaders. At least one resident burned a piece of the polystyrene foam used in the renovation to show how easily it caught fire.

Their complaints led various government agencies to conduct inspections and to issue warnings, notices and citations to the contractor. But there were also mixed messages, and no one stepped in to address the dangers on the whole. In an email to residents, one official described the fire risk from netting on the scaffolding as “relatively low.”

Now, 161 people are dead and thousands are displaced.

…regulators also failed to act decisively on repeated warnings about potential corruption in the renovation project, which may have contributed to the use of the materials.

The Hong Kong authorities have long acknowledged corruption in the construction industry. Activists have warned that some companies inflate costs while using cheap materials. Those same practices went unchecked at Wang Fuk.

Residents’ emails and official statements suggest that multiple government agencies played down concerns, performed perfunctory inspections or relied on reassurances from contractors. Officials also missed other lapses, including fire alarms that failed in seven buildings.

…A local politician, Peggy Wong, who did not live on the estate, got involved in key decisions, residents said. The Wang Fuk homeowners board had long encouraged residents to vote for Ms. Wong, a district councilor for the pro-Beijing Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong since 2003. (She briefly lost her seat during antigovernment protests in 2019.)

She served the board as an adviser while in office, according to records of the board’s meetings.

She generally urged residents, many of whom are retirees, to back the board’s decisions and sometimes went from door to door, persuading people to sign letters authorizing her to vote on their behalf, according to seven residents who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution.

Following the Jimmy Lai verdict, an op-ed on NatSec-era Hong Kong In the American Spectator…

National Security Law on June 30, 2020. The measure proved to be the perfect toolkit for the CCP, criminalizing “secession, subversion, terrorist activities, and collusion with a foreign country or with external elements to endanger national security, and stipulates the corresponding penalties, which in the most serious cases, could result in life imprisonment.” This effectively banned opposition to and even criticism of the CCP as well as the local, Beijing-imposed authorities. No resistance has been too minor to punish. Amnesty International reported that people “have been targeted and harshly punished for the clothes they wear as well as the things they say and write, or for minor acts of protest, intensifying the climate of fear that already pervaded Hong Kong.”

…The conviction rate [for NatSec trials] is 95 percent. The abuse rate is similarly high. Reported Amnesty International: “(1) 85 percent of concluded cases involved only legitimate expression that should not have been criminalized; (2) the courts denied bail in 89 percent of national security cases; and (3) the average length of pre-trial detention is 11 months. Taken together, these findings show that the implementation of national security legislation in Hong Kong has violated international human rights law and standards, including freedom of expression and right to liberty.”

The largest NSL trial was of 47 Hong Kong legislators, academics, journalists, union leaders, and other activists, prosecuted for organizing a political primary, which was legal at the time. Forty-five were convicted and sentenced to prison terms varying from four to ten years. Why? The defendants were charged with conspiracy to commit subversion since their purpose, in what officially remained a free election, was to elect candidates who would oppose the SAR’s chief executive and other Beijing factotums.

[Jimmy Lai] chose to remain in Hong Kong after passage of the NSL. He was thrice arrested, starting in August 2020, held in solitary confinement (for more than 1800 days, and counting!), and subjected to seven different trials, starting in 2021, which resulted in collective sentences of nearly ten years. His NSL trial ran for 156 days and was anything but fair. Detailed HRW: “Lai’s prosecution was marred by multiple serious violations of fair trial rights, including being tried by judges hand-picked by the Hong Kong government, denied a jury trial, subjected to prolonged pretrial detention, and barred from having counsel of his choice.” The three jurists issued an 855 page opinion, which claimed that Lai was the “mastermind” of a conspiracy against the PRC. Added Judge Esther Toh, who was chosen to convict, he “had harbored his resentment and hatred of the PRC for many of his adult years.”

…Hong Kong Chief Executive John Lee (Ka-chiu), the SAR’s top security apparatchik before being selected by Beijing to replace the stumbling Carrie Lam in 2022, has been regularly praised by Xi. Lee denounced Lai: “Some organizations, particularly foreign media organizations, deliberately mislead the public and deliberately whitewash the criminal acts of Lai under the cloak of a so-called ‘media tycoon,’” and seek to “obscure Lai’s shameless acts and subversive actions as an agent of external forces to infiltrate and brainwash young people, through manipulating the media to incite the public and betraying the interests of the country and the people.”

Lai’s conviction offers further evidence, as if any more was needed, to Taiwan that the “two systems, one country” model inevitably means only one, very authoritarian system. Although Hong Kong remains distinct from the mainland — more open to foreigners, foreign commerce, and information — there is no meaningful difference in the totality and brutality of CCP rule.

A letter in the WSJ from Mark Simon on the Jimmy Lai trial…

Under China’s national-security law, the proceedings were a farce: hand-picked judges, no foreign lawyers, no jury. The city’s common-law heritage—which nominally rejected retroactivity in criminal law—was junked. Mr. Huang would certainly cite an internationally recognized legal body, the United Nations or an English law expert who would praise the trial. None exist.

Describing Mr. Lai as someone who colluded with “external forces” is a transparent whitewash. His primary “offense” was having Western friends, running Apple Daily and being resolved to “fight,” not for America but for values inimical to the Chinese Communists. He was a newspaperman, and a successful one, which makes him a threat to a regime that can’t coexist with a free press. It’s nearly impossible to overstate the fixation of the city’s pro-Beijing political elites on Apple Daily, Mr. Lai and those in his orbit. I’m well-aware: I worked with Mr. Lai for more than 20 years and was mentioned more than 900 times in the verdict statement.

Reading Mr. Huang’s screed, one concludes that the government is trapped in a mess of its own making. Beijing finally seems to realize that it is the one forced to cash the reputational checks that Hong Kong has bounced through its own incompetence and authoritarian overreach.

From HKFP – China’s foreign ministry office in Hong Kong called in foreign diplomats…

In a statement published on Monday, the Commissioner’s Office of China’s Foreign Ministry in the Hong Kong SAR said it had lodged “solemn representations” and summoned representatives of “several” consulate generals, including the US and the UK.

…During the meetings on Wednesday and Thursday, the office expressed “strong concern and firm opposition” towards officials and politicians from those countries and the organisation over comments they made about Lai, who was found guilty in a national security trial earlier that week.

The office “urged those countries, organization and politicians to abide by international law and the basic norms of international relations, respect China’s sovereignty and the rule of law in Hong Kong, and refrain from interfering in Hong Kong affairs and China’s internal affairs in any form,” the statement read.

Also from HKFP – HK University bars students from holding a vigil in memory of the Tai Po fire victims…

Undergrad, the official publication of the now-abolished Hong Kong University Students’ Union, reported on Monday that HKU had refused permission to use a campus venue and had urged student societies not to organise memorial events.

More on ‘force majeure’ in Hong Kong from Index on Censorship…

The first known case of political force majeure occurred in March 2023, when a screening of the British independent horror movie Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey was cancelled. Winnie the Pooh is often used to satirise Chinese leader Xi Jinping. When announcing the cancellation, the organiser, Moviematic, initially wrote on Instagram: “I believe you understand that in Hong Kong nowadays, many things are force majeure.” This line was later removed and replaced with “technical reasons.”

The Diplomat on China’s recent concern over pregnant women sending blood samples overseas for fetal sex-testing…

…Reportedly, the gang used social media to explicitly advertise “risk-free” genetic screening and fetal sex identification. The latter service is banned in China – begging the question as to why social media sites allowed such ads to proliferate in the first place. After the blood was sent to the gang, the blood-filled test tubes would be taped to the abdomen or inner thighs of couriers, or stuffed into suitcases or boxes of tea. With fees ranging from 2,000 yuan to 3,000 yuan, the gang’s revenue likely exceeded $30 million.

While the authorities didn’t confirm where the blood was eventually sent to, many news bloggers have speculated the destination was Hong Kong, which has long been a destination for fetus sex identification services. The location of the bust – Guangzhou, Foshan, and Shenzhen, all close to Hong Kong – adds some weight to this speculation. 

…China’s 2020 Biosecurity Law makes it clear that the “state enjoys sovereignty over our country’s human genetic resources” and says the government must “strengthen the management and oversight of the collection, storage, use, and external provision” of these resources.

In 2023, the Ministry of State Security was blunt about what it believes the risks are of foreign entities getting their hands on Chinese genes. In an article shared on its social media accounts, it warned that “genetic weapons can be developed to kill targets of a predetermined race, so as to selectively attack targets with specific racial genes.”

According to the Smithsonian…

While the genetic difference between individual humans today is minuscule – about 0.1%, on average – study of the same aspects of the chimpanzee genome indicates a difference of about 1.2% … [measuring] only substitutions in the base building blocks of those genes that chimpanzees and humans share.

I am fairly sure that the tiny differences in DNA among humans do not correlate neatly with ‘predetermined races’, and certainly not with modern national borders. Does this reflect official Chinese thinking on science? On bioweapons research? And will Hong Kong now clamp down on this weird smuggling operation? 

Twitter keeps switching to its algorithm as its default feed, as a result of which I accidentally saw this halfway decent joke. Took me a moment to get it…

A priest, a pastor and a rabbit entered a clinic to donate blood. The nurse asked the rabbit: “What’s your blood type?”

“I’m probably a type O,” said the rabbit.

A deliriously merry Christmas to everyone. Alan Leong (Civic Party, etc) points out that the date 25-12-25 only happens once a century. Cosmic.

From the comments – a past seasonal airing of the genius that is Knownot.

In the New Statesman, Jonathan Sumption – former overseas member of the Court of Final Appeal – on the Jimmy Lai verdict. He blames the law, not the judges…

Reading through this very long judgment (it runs to 855 pages), one is constantly struck by the critical references on nearly every page to Lai’s hostility to China and the Chinese Communist Party, his criticisms of Chinese and Hong Kong officials, his objections to the national security law, his support for the pro-democracy movement and his preference for western over Chinese values, as if these things were self-evidently wrong and presumptive evidence of criminality. That is the abyss into which basic political freedoms have fallen in Hong Kong. In the end it does not matter whether it is the law or the judges who have suppressed basic political liberties in Hong Kong. The essential point is that those who criticise China or the Hong Kong government or organise themselves to press for a greater measure of democracy are liable to go to jail. These are the hallmarks of the totalitarian state which China has always been and Hong Kong is in the process of becoming.

The three judges who heard Lai’s case are excellent lawyers. Esther Toh Lye-ping, who presided, is an experienced and independent-minded criminal judge. So what explains the palpable judicial hostility to defendants in politically sensitive trials and the paranoia which equates political dissent with treason and subversion? To answer that question, it is necessary to understand the oppressive atmosphere which has prevailed in Hong Kong since 2020. It isn’t just the jailing of dissenters. Libraries have been purged. School syllabuses have been modified. Rights advocates have been aggressively interrogated by the police. Trade Unions and political organisations have been forced to close their doors. Broadcasters have been edited or jammed. The rare acquittals or grants of bail in politically sensitive cases have been followed by bellows of rage from pro-Beijing legislators and editorial writers. “Patriotism” according to China’s definition has been required of every public servant, including judges.

Hong Kong is a special administrative region of China with its own legal system based on English law, but no longer on English legal values. China is an enormous presence. Politically, it holds all the cards. Legally, it can and does redefine the meaning of the Basic Law or the national security law through “interpretations” from Beijing’s standing committee. Of course, the rule of law applies in principle, as Hong Kong government representatives never cease to tell us. But it does not apply to issues on which the Chinese government has a political agenda. The unity of the Chinese world matters too much to Beijing for that to be allowed.

On one of my last visits to Hong Kong, I discussed these matters over a meal with a senior judge of the Court of Appeal whose wisdom I have always respected. We cannot conduct a guerilla war against the Chinese state, he said. We are part of China. It is the dominant regional power. Our roots are in China and Hong Kong. We don’t have an exit route as you do. We are pressed by the West to uphold Western values as if we were a democracy, but what can the West offer Hong Kong except moral lectures and second passports? It is a good question.

Eric Lai in the Diplomat…

…the Lai verdict reveals something … troubling: local courts are endorsing authorities engaged in information manipulation about Lai and Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement. The ruling represents more than just another conviction in a city where dissent is no longer tolerated. It is a capstone in the ongoing effort to rewrite the history of Hong Kong and its pro-democracy movement – using the once-respected courts as the final word in this narrative revision.

For years, China’s cognitive warfare against Hong Kong has operated on several fronts. First, it promotes the narrative that Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement was merely foreign interference. This is the “mastermind” theory, portraying activists as foreign proxies rather than citizens exercising collective political agency. Second, it advances political relativism, suggesting that Chinese authoritarian governance deserves equal respect as Western liberal democracies and that authoritarian regimes deserve leadership. Third, it insists that human rights must yield to nationalistic conceptions of regime security and that the international system does not necessarily promote the established human rights norms and practices set by the United Nations. 

…The Lai verdict represents … a new low [in courts’ involvement]. The Court of First Instance departed from political impartiality by adopting politicized language against Lai – and by extension, Hong Kong’s entire pro-democracy movement.

The verdict claims Lai’s trial is not a “trial for his political views and he is free to hold whatever views he likes on politics.” Yet its substance overwhelmingly associates his guilt with political speeches and actions. The opening paragraphs stigmatize Lai’s character with loaded language: his “rabid hatred of the CCP” (Chinese Communist Party), his “deep resentment,” his “obsession to change CCP’s values to those of the Western worlds and counterbalance China’s influence.” The court describes him as “poisoning the minds of his readers” through “venomous assertions” in the Apple Daily. The verdict traces Lai’s origins in Hong Kong – a story of displacement from mainland China shared by many Hong Kongers – to paint a picture of a man motivated by hatred rather than principle.

The 2019 pro-democracy movement – which at its height saw 2 million people take to the streets – is reduced to violence and chaos in the court verdict. The court portrays Lai as both the “mastermind” of the movement and a foreign proxy, reinforcing Beijing’s preferred narrative…

Most troubling is the verdict’s treatment of post-National Security Law conduct. The court acknowledges that after the law took effect, Lai made no explicit public requests for sanctions. Yet it concludes his “implicitly disguised and subtle approach” to communications still constituted collusion. This reasoning – finding criminality in the unspoken – approaches the Chinese concept of “誅心” (punishing thoughts), criminalizing intentions rather than acts that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This veers into thought crimes incompatible with freedom of conscience.

…The verdict’s release triggered an immediate government response. Within hours, official statements from various official agencies in Hong Kong and China cited the court’s findings to justify their usual narratives depicting Lai as a foreign agent, anti-China troublemaker, and a media mogul spreading misinformation. Calls for heavy punishment by government agencies were widely publicized – even before Lai could present his argument for mitigation. 

Most of these accusations stemmed from facts that predate the promulgation of the NSL, and the verdict says they serve only as “a background.” Nevertheless, these pre-NSL facts in the verdict now endorse state-led political narratives and discourse. This rapid adoption of propaganda, followed by counterattacks against foreign media, reveals how judicial decisions now serve as ammunition in a broader information war.

More on the Jimmy Lai verdict from Michael Kovrig…

In Time, author Gigi Leung’s memories of growing up in an HOS project.

A thread on ‘happy Christmas’ vs ‘merry Christmas’, starring Shakespeare, Oliver Cromwell and Charles Dickens.