Another Academic Hastily Flees Hong Kong

Chung wrote he was "reluctantly" leaving Hong Kong

It was disheartening to see another academic leave Hong Kong after he had been visited by the national security police. Political scientist Chung Kim-wah wrote a long post on his Facebook page with pictures of the empty departure area of Hong Kong International Airport.

He said he has to "reluctantly" leave Hong Kong for the UK, but didn't go into details. Instead he wrote about feeling bad about having to leave older parents behind and apologised for not being able to properly say goodbye to people.

"After balancing different factors and considerations, I have no choice but to make this decision," he wrote, and added he would live abroad f\or "a period of time".

Chung's picture of an empty departure area

Chung is the deputy CEO of the Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute, and was assistant professor of the Department of Applied Sciences until January 2020.

In his Facebook post, he said he initially did not think of migrating:

"I was born and raised in Hong Kong. A vast majority of my loved ones are in Hong Kong. I view Hong Kong as the place that cultivated me, and since I was young, I made it my ambition to contribute to Hong Kong and improve society," he wrote.

"Now I can only hope that the skies will be broader, the air fresher... and that I don't have to think about whether the red lines that move arbitrarily will one day target me."

In an article published in Ming Pao on Sunday night, Chung said that he had met national security police but did not elaborate. When asked by the newspaper if this was the reason why he left Hong Kong, he referred to his Facebook post describing his departure as "fleeing the chaos of the Qin dynasty" -- an expression alluding to the turmoil of China's first empire.

Harris was another high profile person who left

Chung's announcement comes two days after he publicly appeared at a PORI news conference about a poll on the public awareness of cannabis products in Hong Kong. 

It seems the national security police are still busy visiting people despite the pandemic. In early March the former head of the Hong Kong Bar Association Paul Harris had a chat with the national security police in Wan Chai earlier and given a warning over an alleged breach of the national security law. Harris would only confirm to Reuters that he had left the city to visit his mother in England.

Harris is a prominent human rights lawyer who was representing two former lawmakers charged in organising the primaries in 2020, and he has been the subject of attacks over the past year.

He expressed concern about the city's rule of law and said the national security law, which was implemented on June 30, 2020, was inconsistent with the Basic Law.

"I am not against the principle of having national security laws, which most countries have for legitimate reasons," he wrote in an article on the Bar Association's website at the time.

"But the Hong Kong NSL excludes certain officials from all legal challenge for their actions."

Beijing claimed Harris was "cheering for independence advocates", and said he was unfit to chair the Bar Association.

CY Leung Hungry for a Power Grab

Leung wants to spar with Lam over chief executive elections

 

After Leung Chun-ying stepped down as chief executive in 2017 citing family reasons, and was rewarded with the title of vice-chairman of the Chinese People's Consultative Conference -- China's top political advisory body -- most of us assumed he would go off to Beijing and climb further up the ranks.

But the past week Leung, known as a "cunning wolf", has revealed his claws and is taking swipes at his successor and former chief secretary, Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor.

Every CE has been elected by a committee

Does he really want to be CE again?

God help us.

On January 18, Leung suggested Hong Kong's next leader did not have to be voted on by an electoral committee, but rather through consultation.

He cited Article 45 of the Basic Law that said the chief executive "shall be selected by election or through consultations", and that if the next leader was chosen through the latter process, it would still be legal and the British government could not complain about it.

The following day Lam hit back, saying all previous chief executives had been chosen through an electoral process since 1997.

"I think whether it is from the perspective of historical development, or the social effects of an election, it's better for the chief executive to be elected," she said.

Over 600,000 took part in the July primaries

Currently Hong Kong's chief executive is chosen by an election committee of 1,200 people, not one person, one vote, which triggered the 2014 Occupy Movement.

Interestingly when Lam was chief secretary, she spearheaded an effort to have the chief executive elected by popular ballot by 2017. That did not happen after the 79-day protest.

Meanwhile Leung wrote on his Facebook that the opposition camp's close ties with the United States made him question the necessity of a chief executive election.

"What's the actual situation in Hong Kong in recent years? The major politicians from the opposition camp have refused to recognize their roots... or have even asked the American government to sanction Hong Kong," he wrote.

"If this actual situation causes a puppet of the American government to be elected as chief executive, do we still want an election?"

Leung has some twisted thinking the US would influence the Hong Kong chief executive election, but why would he worry about that when all the members of the Election Committee are pro-Beijing?

The NSL has led to arrest of ex-lawmakers

He continued his campaign again this week, claiming the opposition still had a chance of winning more seats in the Election Committee when the pan-democrats have been completely decimated in the Legislative Council, last September's elections were postponed because of the pandemic, and the national security law led to the arrest of many former lawmakers for taking part in last July's primaries.

In addition, Leung seemed to believe pro-democracy people were becoming more politically involved in the governing bodies of professional groups, such as the Bar Association and the Institute of Certified Public Accountants.

"Forgive me for saying this, but the [candidates] are all anti-establishment, not just pro-democracy," he said. "All professional bodies seem to be like this, and you can say that the silent majority just won't come out."

Asked to comment about Leung's latest argument, Lam did not want to argue with her predecessor in the media, and that his suggestion would require changes to the Basic Law.

Lu Ping insisted on "consultation" in Article 45

Meanwhile Martin Lee Chu-ming who helped draft the Basic Law before the handover, explained the word "consultation" was added in Article 45 to mirror the wording in the Sino-British Joint Declaration.

"Lu Ping insisted we should stick to the exact wording of the joint declaration," Lee recalled, referring to the senior Chinese delegate involved in the negotiations with Britain over the transfer of the city's sovereignty.

"Back then, not a single one sitting on the Basic Law drafting committee called for picking the city leader through consultations. No one opposed the inclusion of 'consultations' [in Article 45], as we all were well aware that eventually elections would be held after the handover."

Lee said in the 1980s, Beijing was determined to hold chief executive elections after the handover to secure the confidence of foreign businesses and Hongkongers, to convince them to stay.

Lee suggests Leung wants to become CE again

However, Lee believes Leung's latest comments are a bid for him to try to make a comeback.

"He fears he may not win the election and so proposes doing it through consultations," he added.

Ouch.

Perhaps Leung is still sore from only securing 689 votes compared to his successor's 777?

Both choices were hardly stellar for Hong Kong... anyone else willing to take on Leung in 2022?

 

Picture of the Day: Rainbow

A beautiful rainbow at sunset in Kennedy Town today

 

It's been a crazy week. Four lawmakers disqualified after the National People's Congress Standing Committee claimed they did not uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong SAR. The following day 15 of their colleagues resign en masse, leaving two independents as the only opposition.

The Hong Kong Bar Association and Law Society both question the legality of the NPCSC's decision and are asking for clarification.  

And then a freelance reporter with RTHK appeared in court to face charges of false declaration when she conducted registration searches on vehicles that were in videos related to the July 21 attack in Yuen Long last year. Bao Choy Yuk-ling was granted bail, and her case will be heard in court January 14.

As if that wasn't enough, the number of coronavirus cases keeps rising, though the majority are imported. But the government insists it needs to prevent a fourth wave from happening so now it will force "high risk groups" to do mandatory testing, restaurants are back to four to a table, bars and pubs to two, and these establishments must close by midnight.

Today I decided to nip downstairs to take a quick look at the sunset (now at 5.40pm), and after I took some pictures I turned around to see people taking pictures of the sky. I looked up and saw a brilliant rainbow! What a surprise and a happy one. 

I don't know how that rainbow appeared as there was no precipitation today that I know of. But I'll take it as a sign that things could get better soon.

Protest Slogan Pushback

This slogan was adopted in the July 21 protests until now

A slogan from 2016 by a pro-independent activist and was adopted as a protest slogan last year, is now considered subversive and secessionist by the Hong Kong government.

"Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times" was first coined by Edward Leung Tin-kei when he was running for the 2016 Legislative Council by-election.

He was later jailed for his role in the Mongkok riots that year, though his slogan was adopted on July 21 during the anti-extradition protests, and chanted at many rallies since.

Edward Leung first coined the slogan in 2016

Last night, the government claimed the phrase incited separatism, but Hong Kong Bar Association council chairman Philip Dykes said it was "premature" for the government to declare the slogan against the law.

"It is for the judges to determine the legal effect of what those words mean," he said. "It is premature to say that those words... fall foul of the new law."

Dykes added that only a court could generate a "binding interpretation" of the slogan, or determine the legal consequences for those who chant it.

Professor Simon Young, associate dean of the University of Hong Kong's law school, said that while the court might find the slogan encourages secession, it would be up to the prosecution to prove the defendant encouraged a second person to commit secession, and that it was successfully followed through.

He said it could be difficult to prove, but the evidence would include the person's previous statements, activities and associations.

Young said possessing material with the slogan could not be an offence of incitement because it has not been shown to anyone and thus no one can be said to have been encouraged.

In the meantime protesters have found creative ways to keep the slogan alive.

One is acrostic, where the characters of the slogan are written vertical, but horizontally are random phrases of everyday life. The hashtag is: #明嘅就會明 'you understand if you understand'.

My friend had a good laugh when he discovered this.

Then there is this one floating around by Chinese dissident artist Badiucao:

There's also an emoticon one that is cute:

Hong Kong people can be very creative!

There are other variations like "GFHK SDGM", the initials of each word, or "36390242", which is similar to the pronunciation in Cantonese.

Beijing's Alternate Universe for Hong Kong

With the new national security law coming in, the sun is setting on Hong Kong

Today was another day where many things happened and we're still trying to absorb it all.

First, Macanese casino magnate Stanley Ho Hung-sun passed away in Hong Kong. He was 98 years old. His daughter Pansy Ho Chiu-king confirmed the news in a press statement to reporters flanked by numerous members of the family.

Stanley Ho's family gathers to announce the patriarch's death

He has had a colourful life to say the least, having been born rich, only for the family to lose it all, and Ho started all over again in Macau and built the then Portuguese colony into the Monte Carlo of the east, and in the new millennium it eclipsed Las Vegas in casino earnings.

Not only did Ho make himself wealthy, but his family too (17 children with four "wives"), some of them becoming billionaires themselves. But now that he's gone, the family members may be fighting over the spoils...

And this is happening as Beijing continues to dismantle Hong Kong's political and legal institutions.

The proposed security law -- of which there are no details -- has apparently been amended today to not only prevent, stop and punish "acts" but "activities" as well that are deemed to be a threat to national security.

Ho built a gambling empire in Macau starting in 1962

It will be voted on on Thursday then forwarded to the National People's Congress Standing Committee, China's top legislative body, to craft the bill. So it is voted on before it is hammered out... sounds like the cart before the horse, and expanding the definition to be as encompassing as possible.

Michael Tien Puk-sun, a Hong Kong deputy to the NPC opposed the amendment, one of the few who did. He questioned what this would mean for people who participated in protests that suddenly became violent.

Another deputy wondered if people gathering for the annual June 4 candlelight vigil would run afoul of the law, adding this law would provoke fear in the city.

Meanwhile Philip Dykes, head of the Hong Kong Bar Association questioned why Article 23 was written into the Basic Law if national security legislation could be imposed by Beijing under Article 18 instead.

Philip Dykes wonders why Article 23 was written in Basic Law

Article 23 stipulates Hong Kong must enact its own laws to outlaw treason, secession, sedition, subversion, theft of state secrets, and foreign political interference.

"If you are seeking to enact laws under Article 18 relating to subversion and secession... etc etc, and Article 23 covers exactly the same territory, what's the purpose of Article 23? Why was it put there in the first place? It will be a complete overlap and that can't have been the intention of the drafters," Dykes said.

"It's a matter of Chinese constitutional law. I want it explained to me how this bypass can be made. Because Article 23 was completely redundant."

Will Dykes ever get his answer?

Not only is this questionable, but also foreign judges will not be able to rule on cases regarding national security. Hong Kong has had foreign judges since the handover in July 1997 to help maintain its credibility as an international financial hub.

The Court of Final Appeal has 23 judges, 15 of whom are foreign, from Canada, Australia and the UK.

The Court of Final Appeal has 23 judges, 15 are foreign

Macau has already had this arrangement of no foreign judges hearing national security-related cases since 2018; only judges who are of Chinese nationality can hear these cases.

Earlier today Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-gnor held a press conference in which she tried to establish an alternate universe by saying the new national security law would not affect daily life in Hong Kong.

She pointed out other western countries had enacted similar laws without scaring investors away, and that only a small group of people would be affected by this law.

"Law enforcement agencies... must not affect the basic rights and freedoms that residents enjoy under [local] law," Lam said.

She said it was "untrue" the NPC Standing Committee had no legal authority to craft such a law for Hong Kong, that it was undermining the principle of "one country, two systems", and that the law would destroy the city's status as a global financial hub.

Lam says the NPC is not doing going against the Basic Law

Can we just say that stocks didn't plunge as low as they did yesterday, but they were still struggling to get back to where they were five days ago.

She added: "We are a very free society. For the time being, people to have this freedom to say whatever they want to say. But ultimately, what is to be provided in this piece of legislation is for all of us to see in order to be assured that Hong Kong's freedoms will be preserved."

Note the phrase: "for the time being"... very ominous.

Even Secretary for Justice Teresa Cheng Yeuk-wah added to the propaganda chorus, writing on her blog the new national security law did not trample on "one country, two systems" or the Basic Law.

Their explanations are hardly reassuring to the skeptical public except for those who just want protesters thrown in jail.

Security is tight around the Legislative Council today

There were calls by protesters tonight to gather at the Legislative Council before lawmakers vote on the contentious National Anthem bill. Anyone who misuses or insults March of the Volunteers faces up to three years in prison and fines as high as HK$50,000 (US$6,450).

Riot police were stationed around the legislature complete with giant water barricades, but nothing happened so far.

Students are calling for a general strike tomorrow instead of returning to class after a four-month break due to the coronavirus pandemic.

Things are all happening so fast there is hardly enough time to voice opinions let alone absorb what is going on.

Lam and her administration have lost so much credibility in the last year it's impossible to trust them at all. They have completely sold out Hong Kong and dragged us along into the mainlandization of the city whether we like it or not...

Plugging Loopholes with More Holes

Hong Kong's constitution is under threat by Beijing

As the National People's Congress moves full speed ahead to pass the national security law that was "tailor-made" for Hong Kong, the city's professional body of barristers says Beijing has no legal authority to enact the law, which it adds has "a number of worrying and problematic features".

HKBA points out holes in the national security law

The Hong Kong Bar Association was also concerned about mainland agencies setting up in the city to safeguard national security, saying it was "entirely unclear" how that arrangement would comply with Article 22 of the Basic Law, that stipulates Beijing departments would not interfere in local affairs.

It adds it was "entirely unclear" how these proposed agencies would operate and be bound by Hong Kong laws, if they would have the power of enforcement and whether such powers would be limited to laws currently in force in the city.

As Martin Lee Chu-ming said in The Guardian, the Hong Kong Bar Association says the national security law does not meet the categories of laws in Annex III of the Basic Law, that are confined to defense, foreign affairs, and matters outside the limits of the city's autonomy.

The Basic Law also says that city itself should enact these laws, not Beijing.

Tam Yiu-chung says people can comment on the new law

In addition, there doesn't seem to be any public consultation on the proposed law, though Tam Yiu-chung, Hong Kong's only representative in the NPC Standing Committee, says there is a website where the public can log in their comments about the national security law.

However, when reporters looked into it, the website only shows the number of comments it has collected, but does not display the comments, or any government feedback.

Ivan Choy Chi-keung, a political academic at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, says the NPC's opinion-collecting mechanism is very outdated.

"It's only a passive way of collecting opinions," he said. "In the colonial period, many consultative committees were set up in Hong Kong, pooling representatives from different groups... In foreign democratic countries, they rely on elections to gain a public mandate."

Antony Dapiran says Beijing is pressing the nuclear option

But we're afraid to tell Choy that we're not in a democratic country, we're a part of China, and it wants us to lose the "one country, two systems" tagline and become further integrated with the mainland starting with this national security law.

Australian author and lawyer Antony Dapiran says Beijing dropping this political bombshell late last week, outlawing secession, subversion, terrorism and foreign influence over the heads of the democratically-elected legislature.

"This is the Nuclear Option: Beijing's ultimate power to impose whatever it wants on Hong Kong, outside and above Hong Kong's constitutional, political and legal structure," he writes in his newsletter.

It is hardly reassuring when Maria Tam Wai-chu vice-chairwoman of the Basic Law Committee says with the new security law, secret agents could come to Hong Kong to investigate cases here with the local police in a "joint effort".

Maria Tam says there's nothing to worry about the new law...

She said police from outside Hong Kong would need "approval" from local authorities to conduct investigations. "And you cannot investigate on your own."

"I'm not worried about anybody being arrested by a police officer from the mainland and then taken back to China for investigation or punishment," Tam added. "It's not, not going to happen."

Errr, right. We'll take your word for it, Maria, like every other pro-Beijing politician in Hong Kong trying to sell the national security law as no big deal...

More Questions than Answers

Carrie Lam addressing the media today to clarify last night's video message

Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor made yet another appearance before the media this morning before taking the high-speed train to Guangxi.

She wanted to clarify her pre-recorded speech from yesterday, but this only led to more questions than answers.

A lot of media want Lam to further clarify her remarks

Lam explained withdrawing the bill next month when the Legislative Council resumes will not involve a vote or debate. Skeptics question whether the government will put forward this motion, but she says this is the administration's goal.

While she pledged she and her team will meet with people of "all walks of life" and listen to them air their grievances, Lam still insisted on going forward with Independent Police Complaints Council investigating into the police use of force on protesters.

However the members of IPCC are appointed by the government and the watchdog has limits on how far in depth it can investigate. Lam also appointed former Bar Association chairman Paul Lam Ting-kwok SC and former deputy ombudsman Helen Yu Lai Ching-ping to the body, both of who are considered pro-establishment, and reporters asked why no pan-democrats were added.

Police brutality needs to be independently investigated

"IPCC is an independent body. The members appointed need to meet their statutory duties and to be fair in any investigation," Lam explains. "So we should not doubt them. We believe adding members to the IPCC will be helpful. And the appointment of members should be neutral without any political background."

But the media were not satisfied with her answer.

When asked why it took her three months to finally decide to withdraw the bill, Lam was unrepentant, even admonishing reporters.

"There is one purpose for the actions, which is to help Hong Kong move on with the first step. It is incorrect to question why we do these actions now."

How is it incorrect to question why she is doing this now?

The public do not trust the IPCC to be fair in its investigation

We have every right to ask!

She reiterated the government did not see it was necessary to set up a commission of inquiry.

This will not go down well with the majority of protesters.

Then she was asked if withdrawing the bill was her idea of Beijing's, but she says she did not change her mind.

Lam replied that she had never changed her mind, that she has kept the same position all along.

Huh?! That makes no sense. For weeks she stood in front of the media and basically said she was not budging at all, but suddenly yesterday she announced the government would withdraw the bill.

Carrie what happened to your hair here?

How is that not a change of mind by someone? She would not say who.

Lam did not help to clarify much at all, leaving us with many more questions.

One burning question we have is -- why did she have a strange hairstyle in her pre-recorded message. Was it a sign she was trying to tell us?

Safeguard Hong Kong

A blurry picture of a banner that says "Safeguard Hong Kong" on Lion Rock

The hiking activists are at it again.

This morning a yellow banner appeared on Lion Rock in Kowloon with the words "Safeguard Hong Kong" on it.

However, it wasn't anchored properly so it was flapping in the wind.

Police were alerted of the banner at 7.30am and by 11am they had successfully removed it, though it is unknown who put it there and for what reason.

How the Hong Kong rail station would work

However, it is believed the banner is related to the controversy over the Chinese government's state council's Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office (HKMAO) insisting that the city must implement the joint checkpoint at the cross-border rail link being built to connect with Guangzhou and Shenzhen.

The National People's Congress Standing Committee has already authorized a plan where mainland Chinese officials would enforce national laws as part of the West Kowloon station.

"[Authorities] on the mainland and in Hong Kong must execute [the NPCSC's] decision," a HKMAO spokesman said to Xinhua news agency.

The NPCSC's decision was described as "an important constitutional judgment that cannot be challenged" and is in line with Hong Kong's Basic Law, according to a top Beijing expert on the mini constitution.

However, the Hong Kong Bar Association was "appalled" by the decision, saying the move was the most retrograde step since 1997, with the Basic Law being "irreparably breached" and the rule of law "severely" undermined.

The rail-link in West Kowloon is under construction

The association added the decision regarding the co-location agreement of having mainland authorities exercising mainland laws in Hong Kong territory was not supported by any provisions in the Basic Law.

"This plainly amounts to an announcement by the NPCSC that the cooperation agreement complies with the constitution and the Basic Law 'just because the NPCSC says so", the association's statement said.

"Such an unprecedented move is the most retrograde step to date in the implementation of the Basic Law and severely undermines public confidence in 'one country, two systems' and the rule of law in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region."

What is Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor going to do about this? So far she hasn't said much, which means she is complicit to her Beijing masters.

Again Hong Kong people and institutions are left having to defend the city again. It is appalling that the Basic Law isn't even respected by Beijing and instead it keeps changing the goal posts whenever it needs to keep its advantage.

Is there any legal way of challenging the NPCSC's decision? Or are we left to silently accept this latest announcement?

Yet another issue to protest about come July 1, 2018.