Hong Kong Police require Catholics taking part in a Palm Sunday gathering to carry palm branches (well, duh – as the Pope would say) and wear red ribbons on their arms, but of course not face masks. Because all those criminals planning to infiltrate the reenactment of Jesus’s entry to Jerusalem won’t be able to find palms or ribbons…
“It’s a religious event, I think it doesn’t need to be so complicated,” [one] woman said. “We’re just marching a one-minute route.”
She added those who are used to wearing masks may feel uncomfortable about the no-masks rule. Police had said the rule was in place to ensure participants did not use facial coverings to avoid being identified.
She might be advised to keep silent…
Security Secretary Chris Tang on Sunday brushed aside criticisms that police requirements for demonstrations are “discriminatory”, saying some people who find fault with the arrangement are trying to incite hatred and endanger national security.
Tang’s comments came after some people complained about a decision to instruct people taking part in a march protesting against reclamation plans in Tseung Kwan O last week to wear numbered badges, to ensure compliance with a limit on the size of the event.
…unfortunately some people stirred up other’s emotions and smeared the government on purpose,” he added.
“I believe some of those people aim to incite discontent and hatred against the government, in a bid to endanger national security and make Hong Kong no longer peaceful.”
The US State Dept’s annual Hong Kong report contains a long list of developments in what was a busy NatSec year, including arrests of people who allegedly ‘incite discontent and hatred etc’…
There remain differences between Hong Kong and mainland China in some areas, including commercial and trade policy, internet freedoms, and freedom of religion, but PRC and Hong Kong authorities continued to use “national security” as a broad and vague basis to undermine the rule of law and protected rights and freedoms…
The Justice Secretary takes a refreshingly laid-back approach to such reports. But still, the government issues an overwrought response…
A spokesman for the HKSAR Government said, “The HKSAR Government strongly disapproves of and firmly rejects the slandering remarks and ill-intentioned attacks in the US’ so-called 2023 Hong Kong Policy Act Report against Hong Kong where the ‘one country, two systems’ principle is successfully implemented … Through the so-called annual report, the US once again made fact-twisting remarks, with politics overriding the rule of law, about Hong Kong and interfered in Hong Kong affairs which are China’s internal affairs. The US’ attempt to undermine the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong will only expose its own weakness and faulty arguments and be doomed to fail.
The plucky TST Star Ferry pier does its bit.
More ‘elections’ to ignore: most District Council members will be patriots-only, appointed/selected by small-circle.
Samuel Bickett thread on how the Gay Games organizers have embraced/been embraced by the likes of Regina Ip and Allan Zeman. (Patriots can be gay too.)
An HKFP op-ed examines the new protest restrictions, and another asks why journalists need to tell ‘good’ Hong Kong stories. Which brings us back to where we came in: if you don’t want to be criticized, stop doing things that invite criticism.
https://dailyreckoning.com/the-death-of-patriotism/
Tang: What a pathetic, sniveling little POS. I can’t even imagine what kind of deep rooted mental insecurities from youth embedded themselves in a dark part of his skull to manifest into the obsequious, trick performing and self serious lapdog that he is.
Maybe it’s a race to the bottom now since Lee’s so-called election, with elites and senior bureaucrats in daily electioneering performances to impress the Mandarins on their suitability for the next CE opening.
“fact-twisting remarks” Ding! Ding!! We have a Winnah!!!
Sub-head in SCMP yesterday:
“…hundreds of devotees attended morning mass (sic) and waved palm fronds they believe ward off evil spirits…”
How’s that for “slandering remarks and ill-intentioned attacks”?
The display of palm fronds on Palm Sunday is symbolic of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem riding on a donkey one week before His crucifixion and in fulfilment of an Old Testament prophecy.
Palm fronds were laid down in His path and were held by His followers as He passed into the city.
The display of palm fronds on Passion Sunday has nothing to do with “warding off evil spirits”. That’s a Chinese thing.
@Seamus: considering SCCPMP’s so-called copy writers/editors/interns are probably all mainlanders now, what do you expect?
@so – what a load of distorted drivel you linked to. The author blames all the ills of society on people being asked to protect themselves and others against what was then a deadly disease. Meanwhile the Hong Kong government again demonstrates that it doesn’t understand the meaning of “so-called” – but I suspect any attempt to educate them is “doomed to fail”.
“I believe some of those people aim to incite discontent and hatred against the government, in a bid to endanger national security and make Hong Kong no longer peaceful.”
It would be overkill, Lee, Tang and their former colleagues are doing a pretty good job of inciting discontent and hatred without any outside help.
Every sunday is Facepalm Sunday lately
Are palm leaves now classified as offensive weapons?
Isn’t the Security Secretary (seditiously) conflating the roles of police and government?
Even if (at a stretch) criticism of police handling of Public Order regulations were malign, surely that could mean no more than inviting disaffection with the police, not “inciting discontent and hatred against the government”?
What are we become – a police state?
What a load of cock
“I say I support democracy and freedom every day. I’m not worried I’ll be arrested,” says Mr Lam, Secretary for Justice. That is quite some statement.
https://www.thestandard.com.hk/section-news/section/11/251300/'Extremely-small-number'-targeted-by-security-law
“We know they are lying. They know they are lying. They know that we know they are lying. We know that they know that we know they are lying. And still they continue to lie.” —Alexander Solzhenitsyn
@Stanley Lieber
Spot on in the sentiment, but not quite the quote and not Solzhenitsyn (although many have attributed it to him).
“The rules are simple: they lie to us, we know they’re lying, they know we know they’re lying, but they keep lying to us, and we keep pretending to believe them.”
― Elena Gorokhova, A Mountain of Crumbs
@Close but no cigar
The greater flaw in applying the above quote to our local situation is to assume our HK liars possess the same level of self-awareness as the Russians. Do our apparatchiks know they are lying, or do they actually believe the bullshit they are spouting?
@Stanley Lieber
An interesting point. My take:
Our apparatchiks definitely know they are lying. Where the quote falls down is that the apparatchiks are so dimwitted, that they think they’re much cleverer than most Hong Kongers, whom they view as easily hoodwinked idiot children*. So they don’t know that Hong Kongers know they’re lying to them.
As an example of the apparatchiks cluelessness: Having removed democracy, protests, opposition parties and independent media, the government are currently entirely reliant on phone polls to assess policy and public reaction, but (no doubt to better gauge geographic sentiment) they appear to only call landline numbers. Which is a witheringly small and totally skewed demographic.
*See any government PSA ad ever. All are pitched to appeal to kindergarten students, regardless of content matter (voter registration — finger puppets, work safety — cartoons, suicide — kids playing football).
Of course, the truth is Hong Kongers are, at heart, splendidly devious pirates who delight in running rings around the slow-witted bureaucrats and their ill-thought-out policies.
Close but no cigar
As to the quote about lying Ms Gorokhova published a Mountain of Crumbs in 2010 (according to that fount of all human knowledge, Wikipedia).
Whether the lying quote attributed by Stanley Leiber (and many others) to Solzhenitsyn did or did not origiante from the latter, the quote itself was fairly well known in the 1970’s.
A susprising number of people especially girls then read Solzhenitsyn at my none posh school, although I never got past Day in the Life.
For my sins I have never heard of Ms Gorokhova before your post. I will not be rsuhing out to get her book, even if in the library or shops, as I am depressed enough.