Big Lychee, Various Sectors

The Hong Kong government announces HK$200,000 bounties for no fewer than 15 people accused of ‘subversion’ (and other stuff) for taking part in elections for a ‘Hong Kong Parliament’ that few have ever heard of, probably because it doesn’t really exist…

…[the group] held unofficial polls outside of the city to form a shadow legislature to “pursue the ideal of Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong.”

The group also vowed to “uphold the core value of popular sovereignty,” as well as “oppose one-party rule and tyranny.”

…Police said if an offender turns themselves in and “truthfully confesses” to their crimes, they may be granted a lighter or reduced sentence.

“Police urge the wanted individuals to turn back before it’s too late. We hope they will seize the opportunity to surrender themselves in Hong Kong and not continue down the wrong path,” the police said in a statement issued in Chinese.

The government press release says…

The “Hong Kong Parliament” aims to subvert state power; its objectives include promoting “self-determination”, promulgating the so-called “Hong Kong Constitution”, and overthrowing or undermining the basic system of the People’s Republic of China established by the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China or overthrowing the body of the central power of People’s Republic of China or the body of power of the HKSAR with unlawful means, thereby suspected of committing the offence of “Subversion” contrary to Article 22 of the Hong Kong National Security Law.

Several of the suspects (details here) already have HK$1 million bounties on them. The fact that the rewards this time are just 200 grand suggests that even the authorities don’t regard the group’s activities as an especially mortal threat to the PRC’s national security. (I could invite a few friends over, and we could all sit around the table and declare ourselves the ‘Hong Kong Parliament’ – the sovereign power would carry on as if nothing was happening.)

Angry-ish (no ‘despicable’) government press release on UK officials’ criticism of the bounties’ thing,,,

A spokesman for the HKSAR Government said, “Endangering national security is a very serious offence. No country will watch with folded arms on acts and activities that endanger national security. The ‘Hong Kong Parliament’ aims to subvert state power; its objectives include promoting ‘self-determination’, promulgating the so-called ‘Hong Kong Constitution’, and overthrowing or undermining the basic system of the [China]…”

     “…It is both necessary and legitimate, and is also in line with those of other countries and regions around the world … Those absconders hiding in the UK and other Western countries are wanted because they continue to blatantly engage in activities endangering national security. More so, they continue to collude with external forces to cover for their evil deeds. It is necessary for the Police to take all lawful measures to strongly combat the acts of abscondment, and such actions are fully justified, necessary and legitimate.

‘Angry-ish’ perhaps because the UK is considering allowing extraditions to Hong Kong (though presumably it would only apply to cases where the alleged offence is a crime in Britain).

Swiftly followed by another…

The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) today (July 27) strongly opposed and disapproved of smears with distorted facts by government officials and politicians from countries like the United States, Canada and Australia, as well as anti-China organisations, on HKSAR’s lawful act to pursue wanted persons endangering national security absconding from Hong Kong. Not only did such foreign government officials and politicians, as well as anti-China organisations, turned a blind eye to illegal acts of criminals, but also deliberately smeared and spread irresponsible remarks, in an attempt to mislead the public, about the measures and actions taken by the HKSAR Government in accordance with the law. The HKSAR Government strongly disapproved of such acts.

An HKFP op-ed ponders the question of how NatSec police caught the 18-year-old who wrote seditious graffiti on the wall of a China Hong Kong City men’s room. The investigation presumably started after someone reported the presence of such a message. The writer rules out the installation of cameras inside toilet cubicles. Assuming that’s the case (hmm…), the police must have used CCTV outside the restroom, positioned so it showed the faces of everyone entering or leaving. Then, they would need to station at least one cop there everyday to check the walls of the stalls for fresh scribblings every time after someone had used the facilities. Since they would probably have had more than one plain-clothes man hanging around at any given time (the same guy lingering all the time would raise suspicions), we could be talking hundreds of man-hours. 

(I wonder what the cops themselves thought of having to do this. Did they ask themselves if this is what they signed up for when they joined the force?)

An SCMP op-ed looks at restaurant closures and pleads for lower rents…

Former Hong Kong chief executive Leung Chun-ying … has been trying to talk sense into landlords. Last month, he called on them to cut rents or risk missing out. This month, he warned of the “sheer self-delusion” of holding out for high rents.

…Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu has been calling for Hong Kong’s traditional industries to innovate … But, unlike Leung, Lee has not really addressed the elephant in the room: rent. If we understand Leung correctly, he is in effect telling landlords they must change their ways or businesses could perish in this economic environment.

The brilliant songwriter Tom Lehrer has died at the age of 96. He has left his work to all of us. My father introduced me to his songs when I was around 12. ‘In the land of the boll weevil, where the laws are medieval’ (here).

From Thematic Markets, a long piece suggesting that China’s industrial overcapacity is deliberate and the country’s economy is incompatible with much of the rest of the global economy…

…contrary to another popular myth, China’s rise has little to do with efficiency or productivity.  China’s ascent results mostly from beggar-thy-neighbor industrial policies.  China’s total factor productivity (TFP) growth – growth in output not resulting from adding more labor or capital, i.e. efficiency and innovation – has been negative for nearly a decade (Figure 1); i.e. more than all of China’s growth since 2013 has come from increasing capital, even as efficiency subtracted from output.¹³  As a middle-income country, China should offer higher returns on investment than an already rich country, yet the marginal product of capital in China had fallen below that of the United States (Figure 2).  Put another way, China’s economy now is so inefficient that it requires an extraordinary $11 of investment to create $1 of incremental of output.  Furthermore, these figures likely understate China’s inefficiency since they are based on reported Chinese GDP growth that probably is overstated.

…For nearly 30 years, Chinese political, military and diplomatic doctrine has been to use economic development to raise China to a position where it could challenge and displace the US-dominated world order.  President Xi has been unabashedly clear in his desire to create a new “multipolar” order that returns China to its historic role as the ”Middle Kingdom.”¹⁷  He has been similarly blunt that he expects and is preparing for war with the West that he aims to win.¹⁸  Mr. Xi’s top international and domestic policy priorities – the “Made in China 2025” and Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) – aim to make China as self-sufficient as possible while placing it at the center of a new international order based on dependencies to China that guarantee the domestically unavailable resources. 

Hot on the tails of the SCMP’s article on why people like decent affordable food outlets, the BBC asks why locals in places like Barcelona hate tourists.

From Ars Technica – how conspiracy theorists think they’re normal…

In 2015, Pennycook made headlines when he co-authored a paper demonstrating how certain people interpret “pseudo-profound bullshit” as deep observations. Pennycook et al. were interested in identifying individual differences between those who are susceptible to pseudo-profound BS and those who are not and thus looked at conspiracy beliefs, their degree of analytical thinking, religious beliefs, and so forth.

They presented several randomly generated statements, containing “profound” buzzwords, that were grammatically correct but made no sense logically, along with a 2014 tweet by Deepak Chopra that met the same criteria. They found that the less skeptical participants were less logical and analytical in their thinking and hence much more likely to consider these nonsensical statements as being deeply profound. That study was a bit controversial, in part for what was perceived to be its condescending tone, along with questions about its methodology. But it did snag Pennycook et al. a 2016 Ig Nobel Prize.

..Take the case of the Sandy Hook conspiracy, where adherents believe it was a false flag operation. In one sample, 8 percent of people thought that this was true. That 8 percent thought 61 percent of people agreed with them.

An 18-year-old is arrested for allegedly writing ‘seditious’ messages on the wall of a men’s room at Hong Kong China City…

According to the police, the messages were deemed to have provoked hatred, contempt or disaffection against the constitutional order and the executive, legislative or judicial authorities in Hong Kong. The contents also incited other people to commit illegal acts, the police alleged.

Were they messages or essays?

“Police remind members of the public that ‘doing with a seditious intention an act or acts that had a seditious intention’ is a serious offence. Offenders shall be liable to imprisonment for seven years on first conviction. Members of the public are urged not to defy the law,” the statement read.

Some reports are saying that the guy wrote ‘Liberate Hong Kong’. 

If that counts as seditious intention (squared?), what about the Hudson Institute’s new paper on ‘Preparing for a post-CCP China’? From the synopsis…

While the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has weathered crises before, a sudden regime collapse in China is not entirely unthinkable. Policymakers need to consider what might happen and what steps they would have to take if the world’s longest-ruling Communist dictatorship and second-largest economy collapses due to its domestic and international troubles. 

The whole thing is a 128-page PDF referencing – among other things – the Zhou Dynasty. I just skimmed.

Asia Times does a pithier take…

But does this [list of economic and other problems] translate into active opposition within the Central Committee—the body that could potentially remove Xi? No. Because these officials believe that to fix the problem, they’d need to remove the “big man.” But this is a highly hazardous operation, attempted a few times with no success, and often leading to the demise of the rebels.

Moreover, there’s a broader calculation at play. The system is built around the emperor—if you bring him down, will the system survive? If it doesn’t, the officials risk losing their posts along with the leader. As an act of self-preservation, they defend the emperor, no matter what.

The middle class is in a similar situation: their homes have lost half of their value, and their savings have diminished dramatically. But half is better than nothing—especially in the event of a revolution. They still have a lot to lose, and revolutions are fought by people who have nothing to lose but their chains.

Hong Kong’s Security Secretary wants civil servants to identify and respond to ‘soft resistance’…

In a newspaper interview published on Tuesday, Secretary for Security Chris Tang said foreign interference in local affairs has become more diverse and covert as Hong Kong takes on an increasingly prominent position on the global stage.

The government says “soft resistance” involves people channels such as disinformation and the arts to divide society through public opinion and to try to cause distrust or hostility towards the authorities.

Compared to “hard resistance”, it is more difficult to guard against “soft resistance” due to its infiltrating nature, Tang added, while vowing to work on various fronts to safeguard national security.

He said the administration will release new guidelines for civil servants as soon as possible, outlining how they should fulfil their duty in safeguarding national security.

One such way, Tang said, is paying close attention to the emergence of “soft resistance” and taking proactive countermeasures.

We are still none the wiser about what ‘soft resistance’ actually is. It is nowhere, yet it is all around us. It is apparently not illegal, but it is a serious threat. It might involve the arts. It tries to ‘divide society through public opinion’. (What if ‘soft resistance’ is public opinion? What if it is simply ‘society’? What if the problem is people in charge who see the public as a threat?)

What is even less clear is what civil servants are expected to do to respond to it. If, as seems likely, much ‘soft resistance’ is in fact simple criticism of the government, maybe officials could try proactive countermeasures like listening to complaints, and acting to make sure the government does a better job, thus leading to greater public satisfaction. Just an idea. Or is suggesting such a thing ‘soft resistance’?

The government is budgeting HK$1.2 billion for December’s Legislative Council election. The body these days has 90 members, but only 20 of them are returned by popular vote. Another 30 represent functional constituencies, returned by small-circle groups comprising mainly non-human entities. And 40 are returned by a small-circle ‘election committee’. The whole chamber is ‘patriots-only’, with all nominations subject to a screening process; in 2021 many seats were uncontested and voter turnout for the directly elected seats was barely 30%.

In December, there will almost certainly be no opposition candidates on the ballot, and it is likely the bulk of the public will take little interest. The new-style Legco election is, after all, designed to ensure they have no meaningful participation or input: they’re not allowed to vote for most seats, and the candidates they would want can’t take part anyway. There must be a cheaper way for the executive to install its own legislative branch. And…

Another HK$200 million would be needed for the Election Committee subsector by-elections on September 7.

How much can this cost?

On the subject of diverting tax-payers’ money into performances…

Over 100,000 Japanese seafood and aquatic products scanned for radiation in nearly two years since Hong Kong restricted imports due to the discharge of treated water from the Fukushima nuclear plant, with exactly ZERO found to exceed WHO safety levels

From China Unofficial Archives – how Lau Chun Kong came to write Dark Night in Yuen Long on the 7/21 attack.

The SCMP notices the success of two dishes-plus-rice (mostly take-away) restaurants and asks: ‘Why are Hong Kong eateries selling ‘poor man’s meals’ bucking closure trend?’ 

The paper’s sleuth-like reporters solve the mystery…

The growth of such businesses has defied a wave of closures among food and beverage establishments in Hong Kong…

…Gary Ng Cheuk-yan, a senior economist at the Natixis Corporate and Investment Bank, said the rise of this-this rice dining’s popularity over the past few years was largely due to the affordable prices amid broader economic uncertainties.

“Such economic uncertainties mean that consumers are much more prudent when spending, choosing more value-for-money options,” he said.

Who would have thought that entrepreneurs could do well – and even pay some hefty rents – by offering what customers want at prices they find attractive? (Perhaps management theorist Peter Drucker, who defined a company as ‘an organization that makes a profit by meeting a public need’, or something like that.)  

As one customer explains, it’s not simply price, but convenience and genuine appeal…

…“I have a soft spot for this-this rice. I come here for lunch two to three times a week as it’s the closest thing to home cooking.

(Also, I would add, a great way to get quick rice and greens to go with a protein dish you’re making yourself.)

The people behind these no-frills lunchbox places seem to have two things in common. First, they are not civil servants or op-ed writers desperately wondering how to stop Hongkongers from shopping in Shenzhen. And second, they did not open independent bookstores.

Which brings us to an HKFP report on recent tax audits for small bookshops…. 

The directors of the five companies spoke to HKFP on condition of anonymity due to fear of reprisals. While the IRD has completed audits of some companies, others are still under investigation. Among the five, three were established over eight years ago, while two were set up within the past five years.

Brian, a director of an independent bookshop that opened less than half a decade ago, told HKFP that the IRD informed him the company was under tax investigation in late 2024, soon after the company filed its first tax return. 

“Our accountant found it strange. While the IRD can probe tax affairs over the past seven years, it is uncommon for the IRD to investigate newly established companies,” Brian said in Cantonese. “Ours is such a small-scale operation, and the profit is small; is it worth auditing from an economic perspective?” 

…Lily has been running an independent bookshop for more than eight years. Since it was established, business has been tough, recording losses in most financial years. The IRD had never investigated her company until early last year.

According to an IRD document Lily showed to HKFP, the tax authorities began probing the company’s tax assessments over the past six years. It took the bookshop almost a year to answer all the questions from the IRD. 

Lily said the audit was completed late last year after the company was fined “a tiny amount of money” for some understatement of income. 

AP on the new regulations expanding restrictions on prison visits…

Under the new rules, effective Friday, magistrates can issue warrants on application by correctional service officers to bar exchanges between specific legal representatives and persons in custody if the judges believe such connections could harm national security or cause bodily harm to any person, among other reasons.

The department can also restrict certain visits, including those made by specific chaplains, for purposes such as maintaining national security, preventing crime and facilitating inmate rehabilitation.

…In a discussion of the changes with lawmakers this month, Hong Kong Secretary for Security Chris Tang said some prison visitors specifically went to see inmates who were jailed for their roles in “the black violence” — a phrase officials use to describe the 2019 protests — and they continued to stoke anger against the government. 

…Brandon Yau, secretary of the prisoner support group Waiting Bird, said it seemed some authorities believed former demonstrators of the 2019 protests were still planning organized resistance in jail, but that it doesn’t match reality.

…“It seems they (authorities) are doing something further to create an atmosphere that they would continue to target and suppress the political prisoners who were convicted for their roles in the social movement,” he said.

Irrational fears I have seen displayed by Hongkongers: not walking on a footpath along a field in England because there were a dozen dairy cows 200 yards away; refusing to stay in a venerable old hotel in Vietnam because of ‘ghosts’; turning down a very nice government apartment (choosing one provided for more junior civil servants) because it had a view of a cemetery; and avoiding fish from anywhere in the world after the Japanese tsunami of 2011 because of ‘dead bodies in the sea’. 

Now the number of Honkongers visiting Japan drops by 33%, causing scheduled flights to be cancelled, because a manga artist years ago predicted an earthquake for this month.

Well, no-one likes earthquakes. On the other hand, we all (or mostly) love property-value disasters…

A noteworthy story on shop rents from the SCMP…

A 1,036 sq ft shop on the ground floor of 50-52 Russell Street was leased to Skechers for three years at a monthly rent of HK$360,000 (US$45,860), or HK$347 per square foot, according to Rickey Chan, managing director of Dorbo Realty.

Agents said Patek Philippe’s lease had it paying HK$550,000 a month, meaning Skechers was paying 35 per cent less than the Swiss watchmaker, though the monthly rent once surged to HK$1.86 million when the market was at its zenith.

That was in 2018. In other words, the rent is less than a fifth of what it was seven years ago. Some people might look at this and be shocked at the massive decline. Others might wonder what kind of lunacy took hold when someone signed a lease at nearly HK$2 million for a 1,036 sq ft space. 

(Are there any real-estate agents not called Ricky?)

And Bloomberg reports that New World wants to sell its ‘flagship’ (as in ‘white elephant’) mall out near the airport…

The company has held early-stage discussions with the Hong Kong airport authority on its plans, the people said, requesting not to be named because the matter is private. The talks are preliminary and subject to change, the people said.

The mall has been evaluated at a price range of HK$15 billion ($1.9 billion) to HK$17 billion, one of the people said. That means selling at a loss considering the company invested HK$20 billion for the project.

Ouch, ouch, ouch.

Even if Hong Kong had continued to attract tens of millions of Mainlanders buying luxury goods – a big if in itself – it still never made sense to put a giant mall outside an airport in a spot miles from anything else. People on their way to catch a flight do not leave early to go shopping before checking in. People who have just landed even less so. 

Now, the only possible way to attract traffic will be to offer unique and affordable mass-market attractions that could, conceivably, lure local people from the western Kowloon/NT region. But that would imply low rents, which in turn spells financial ruin for whoever owns the place.

Which brings us to the intriguing question: who on earth is going to buy the thing?

An op-ed by Mark Clifford in WSJ…

Publisher and freedom fighter Jimmy Lai has been behind bars in Hong Kong since the end of 2020—more than 1,650 days. Hong Kong insists all is well with Mr. Lai and rebuts any claims to the contrary. Meantime, the government lashes out at critics who question Mr. Lai’s continuing national-security law trial—which could see him jailed for life—as well as his conditions in prison. Late last month the Hong Kong government assailed “foreign politicians, anti-China organisations, and various media” making “irresponsible and absurd remarks, distorting the truth” about Mr. Lai’s case, “with the intention of perverting the course of justice.”

Why is Hong Kong so aggressive in responding to questions about Mr. Lai? The answer lies in the absurdity of holding a 77-year-old newspaper publisher in appalling conditions while he is being tried on sham charges.

Next week’s weather forecast for Hong Kong calls for temperatures in the 90s and 95% humidity. It will feel as if it is more than 100 degrees. In Mr. Lai’s un-air-conditioned windowless cell, it will feel even hotter. That is neither safe nor humane.

…Mr. Lai is a British citizen. He hasn’t had Chinese papers since he left the country in 1961, when he was 12. Yet Hong Kong refuses to give the British government consular access to Mr. Lai, in violation of international diplomatic conventions. The refusal means that no British diplomat has been able to meet Mr. Lai during his more than 4½ years in prison.

Hong Kong officials seem scared even of Mr. Lai’s image. The last photo of him was taken two years ago by an Associated Press photographer, who was then tossed out of Hong Kong. Since then, authorities have used umbrellas and tarps and even boarded up a window to make sure that the world doesn’t get another look at Mr. Lai during his 50 minutes of outdoor exercise a day.

Mark Simon (a former deputy at Next Media) writes…

As I watched the daily news reports of Jimmy Lai’s NSL trial it became obvious, as it has now become to Beijing, that Mr. Lai opposed the violence [of 2019; one of his alleged crimes is sedition]. That truth won’t help him with Hong Kong authorities, as a conviction is a must. But inside the CCP in Beijing, there is a growing unease with the brutal treatment of a 77-year-old in custody. A man who becomes a martyr if he perishes behind bars. As one CCP diplomat told a businessman who dared to bring up Jimmy; “He dies, Hong Kong pays for decades”.

The Hong Kong government knows this, and that is why we were treated on June 30^th at 23:19, the day before the July 1^st National Day, to a late-night press release, meant more for Beijing than the West. A release that ended with but was centered around 500 words claiming Hong Kong authorities are treating Jimmy Lai well. [See following link.}

…Jimmy Lai, my boss, is willing to depart Hong Kong. He is 77. The CCP has taken his business, taken his freedom, and damaged his health. He’s not going to bend, but he is willing to leave. His departure, just as with the departure of other political prisoners frees not only those non-violent activists held in prison, but it also frees Hong Kong from the cost of the violence needed to hold political prisoners in the face of international condemnation and the penalties that come with that condemnation.

Hong Kong is ready to move on. Hong Kong is ready to free up its economy. But first, Hong Kong needs to free its political prisoners.

(The end-June Hong Kong government statement saying – last few paras – it is ‘committed to ensuring that the custodial environment is secure, safe, humane, appropriate and healthy’.) 

As both articles say, Lai’s death in prison would be a serious blow to Hong Kong’s image. Simon in particular suggests that Hong Kong’s authorities are determined to keep the Apple Daily founder in prison, while Beijing officials perhaps differ. This implies that Hong Kong’s leaders would flout Beijing’s wishes, which sounds hard to believe. It could be that there is internal debate somewhere in the power structure about the prospect of having a martyr on their hands. The local, as well as overseas, reaction might worry them: think of the potential for quite large-scale ‘soft resistance’ – eg, everyone wearing black – when Lai’s coffin is being moved, or the funeral takes place.

And here comes another…

The [HK government] today (July 16) strongly condemned various organisations in the United States and Western countries for, once again, disregarding the facts and slandering and smearing the HKSAR Government for handling in accordance with the law the case of Lai Chee-ying involving the Hong Kong National Security Law and related custodial arrangements. Their remarks fully exposed the malicious and despicable intentions of anti-China organisations and media from the US and Western countries to undermine the rule of law in Hong Kong.

In HKFP, the latest from the HK47 appeals…

Lawyers for Owen Chow and Winnie Yu argued that the three trial judges had exercised “excessive judicial intervention” and had prevented the pair from having a fair trial.

…Steven Kwan – representing Chow, who was sentenced to seven years and nine months in jail – said the trial judges had repeatedly intervened in the examination of the defendant by his own counsel during his oral testimony.

“On the first day, Kevin Chan [Chow’s counsel during the trial] was only able to ask 112 questions. The bench asked 153 questions,” Kwan said, adding that the judges asked 45 per cent of all the questions posed to Chow during his entire testimony.

…Robert Pang – representing Yu, who was sentenced to six years and nine months in jail – made a similar argument and said the judges “repeatedly descended… into the arena and disallowed questions.”

“From the very beginning of the examination-in-chief, counsel had been stopped by the bench,” Pang said. “By question 15, the court had started stepping in.”

Amnesty International releases a statement…

…China Director Sarah Brooks said:

“The Hong Kong 47 case stands as one of the most shocking examples of the crackdown on human rights in the city.  This appeal hearing is a chance for the courts to start righting the wrongs of this unprecedented mass prosecution.

“Research findings we released earlier this month show that the vast majority of convictions under the National Security Law have targeted legitimate expression. It is appalling that Hong Kong courts could condone a crackdown that leaves more than 80% of defendants wrongfully languishing behind bars.

“This appeal is a pivotal test—not just for these 13 individuals, but for the future of freedom of expression in Hong Kong. Only by overturning these convictions can Hong Kong’s courts begin to restore the city’s global standing as a place where rights are respected and where people are allowed to peacefully express their views without fear of arrest.”

…To treat self-organized “primaries” conducted by political parties to select candidates to put forward for elections as a genuine threat to Hong Kong’s existence, territorial integrity or political independence does not meet the high threshold of application for “national security” that international human rights standards require.

Research published last month by Amnesty International, on the fifth anniversary of the National Security Law’s enactment, found that more than 80% of people convicted under the law have been wrongly criminalized and should never have been charged in the first place.

The national security laws (it says ‘national’) refer to the whole country, so the HK47 were presumably accused of threatening China’s existence, etc. Which makes the prosecutions even more, shall we say, striking.

From HKFP – a look back at the League of Social Democrats, including the LegCo banana-throwing shock horror outrage of 2008. Rather than hurl the fruit at Donald Tsang, Long Hair tossed it to the floor several yards in front of then-CE Donald Tsang. It was the lamest banana attack in history, yet everyone acted like it was an assassination attempt.

Twelve of the pan-dems found guilty of subversion after taking part in the camp’s 2020 primary election are appealing their verdicts…

The [Appeal Court judges] will hear appeals against convictions and sentences faced by 12 defendants, including ex-lawmaker “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung and journalist-turned-activist Gwyneth Ho.

The dozen were found guilty after trial and, last November, were sentenced to prison terms ranging from six-and-a-half years up to seven years and nine months.

And the government is appealing in the case of Laurence Lau, one of just two of the 47 who were acquitted…

Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Anthony Chau told judges Jeremy Poon, Anthea Pang, and Derek Pang that the trial court “erred” by failing to find that Lau agreed to a scheme, which aimed to veto the government’s budget once elected as lawmakers, ultimately forcing the resignation of the chief executive and a government shutdown.

The trial judges also made a mistake when they ruled that Lau did not have an intention to subvert the state power, the prosecutor said.

The second HKFP article has updates on the other appeals…

On Monday, lawyers for some of the appellants began to make a joint submission, arguing that the act of vetoing government bills, including the budget, was not an abuse of a lawmaker’s power.

The trial court had sided with the prosecution and ruled that voting against the government budget indiscriminately was in breach of the powers and functions of the Legislative Council.

Representing former legislators Helena Wong and Lam Cheuk-ting, barrister Erik Shum said lawmakers who take into account political agendas when they vote for a bill “could not possibly” be seen as abusing their power.

…Shum’s arguments were echoed by Trevor Beel, barrister for journalist-turned-activist Gwyneth Ho. Beel told the court that the word “indiscriminate” was never used by the defendants, but rather was a term adopted by the prosecutors in the case.

Those who took part in the primaries only stated openly that they would “proceed with a mandate,” which Beel said was “clearly given to the people.”

“If their mandate was not considered by the government, then they would proceed to vote against the budget. That’s not an abuse of their power. That’s an exercise of their power,” he said.

This is the heart of the matter: can a plan to use powers clearly provided in the Basic Law be ‘subversion’?

From a US-based YouTube Chinese food channel, a look through a 1930s English-language Hong Kong pocket guide to Cantonese cuisine. She shows many pages clearly – so you can read a lot of it. Includes a list of restaurants at the time. Some of the dishes are familiar, while some are dated and others pretty much defunct. See the description of ‘three varieties of snake with wild cat’ (our old friend the palm civet)