Big Lychee, Various Sectors

From HKFP…

The founder and three staff members of Hong Kong independent bookshop Book Punch have been released on bail after they were arrested by national security police over allegedly selling “seditious books.”

Mark Clifford, author of one of the ‘seditious’ works, writes in a WSJ op-ed…

Book Punch is a shop that hits above its weight. One of Hong Kong’s last independent bookstores, it has been harassed by the government for years. Owner Pong Yat-ming has been dragged into court for giving Spanish lessons and serving sake at a Japanese-themed event.

On Tuesday police charged Mr. Pong and three employees with selling seditious books, including “The Troublemaker,” my biography of Jimmy Lai. Under Hong Kong’s vague and sweeping national-security laws, that offense carries a penalty of up to seven years in prison. The defendants were released on bail Wednesday, but the store remains closed.

Can a jurisdiction that doesn’t want its citizens to read books or learn Spanish seriously call itself a global financial center? Financial centers need freedom—to speak, to debate, to discuss, to argue. Free speech in a modern economy is not a luxury. It’s needed for economic efficiency, price discovery, efficient financial markets and good policy.

Throwing booksellers in prison is a major stumble for any government interested in prosperity. Nobody understands that better than Mr. Lai, 78, who has spent decades fighting for Hong Kong’s freedom. In early February, a kangaroo court sentenced him to 20 years in prison for practicing journalism…

Now, along with hundreds of other political prisoners, Mr. Lai is behind bars. But as the example of Book Punch’s brave owner and staff shows, the spirit of freedom remains in Hong Kong’s DNA. Pro-democracy candidates have enjoyed great support in elections since the 1990s and did so well in 2019 that Beijing changed the electoral system to guarantee the election of more pro-Beijing candidates. Six years after forcing a repressive national-security law on Hong Kong, thin-skinned authorities have been fretting about “soft resistance.” Well, resistance doesn’t get much softer than books.

Referring to NatSec justice (no jury, hand-picked judges, 99% conviction rate, etc) as a ‘kangaroo court’ is presumably what upsets the authorities so much – it’s ‘vilification’, if not ‘incitement’. At the same time, Clifford is being generous in saying the new election rules guarantee ‘more’ pro-Beijing candidates, when results so far suggest the word ‘only’ would be more appropriate.

NatSec measures do have a tendency to produce bad PR for Hong Kong – almost as if the government is vilifying itself. A security alert from the US Consulate in Hong Kong…

It is now a criminal offense to refuse to give the Hong Kong police the passwords or decryption assistance to access all personal electronic devices including cellphones and laptops. This legal change applies to everyone, including U.S. citizens, in Hong Kong, arriving or just transiting Hong Kong International Airport. In addition, the Hong Kong government also has more authority to take and keep any personal devices, as evidence, that they claim are linked to national security offenses.

Authorities are now feeling the need to ‘clarify’ that the new updates to the NatSec Law do not mean cops can force you to hand over your phone on the street (RTHK, Standard).

A Joel Chan thread on the latest population figures in Hong Kong by region and district shows that the population of Hong Kong Island has fallen 7% since mid-2019, and that of Wanchai by 10.1%. 

Hong Kong Island’s population is just one-seventh of the whole city’s. Kowloon’s population has fallen 2.7% since mid-2019. But the New Territories – where the majority of the city’s people live – has risen by 3.2%, so the total population decline nets out at just 0.3%. 

Not sure how the government compiles such precise numbers, given that no full census has taken place in that period. But, if they’re accurate, you have to wonder what sort of impact the disappearance of a tenth of residents must have on a neighbourhood. (Or not. It’s not as if Wanchai seems any less crowded.)

Lingua Sinica report on the Hong Kong Newspaper Association’s annual Best Journalism Awards. The main winner: Ta Kung Pao…

…run by the PRC government’s Liaison Office in Hong Kong, took home 29 prizes. It was record for the group and the largest haul for any media outlet in this year’s competition … The result [offers] plaudits to a state-run outlet that has been on the front lines in attacks on independent journalists and institutions (including the Hong Kong Journalists Association)…

RTHK reports…

Officials are planning to turn a typhoon shelter in southern Hong Kong into a marina equipped with recreational facilities and residential housing in a bid to promote yacht tourism.

The Development Bureau on Wednesday said it expects to launch a tendering exercise next year to seek developers to construct the marina in the Aberdeen Typhoon Shelter expansion area.

In a paper submitted to Southern District Council, the authorities said the planned 11-hectare marina could offer 200 berths.

The other part of the proposal includes turning a 1.16-hectare site around Po Chong Wan into residential units as well as other facilities for services such as food and beverage and yacht maintenance “to make better use of the piece of land”.

…The shelter area is among three proposed locations outlined in the chief executive’s policy address to boost yacht tourism.

The other two are the former Lamma quarry area and the Hung Hom harbourfront.

Even assuming that Hong Kong needs ‘yacht tourism’ – do we really need three marinas? As for the housing, it will of course be of the luxury sort.

How is Mark Clifford’s book on Jimmy Lai ‘seditious’? The Standard quotes a source…

…The seized biography of Lai allegedly disregards facts by glorifying Lai’s actions in colluding with foreign forces to endanger national security, attacks Hong Kong’s judicial personnel, misrepresents the government’s detention arrangements for Lai, and deliberately vilifies Hong Kong and the mainland in an attempt to incite sedition among Hong Kong residents.

Have the authorities detected any evidence of the book inciting any sedition among Hong Kong residents? Is it criminal to ‘disregard facts’, ‘glorify’ someone’s actions, criticize judges or prisons, or ‘vilify’ places?

From HKFP…

Hong Kong independent bookseller Pong Yat-ming and three of his staff have reportedly been arrested on suspicion of selling seditious titles, including a biography of jailed media tycoon Jimmy Lai.

…Citing anonymous sources, the reports said police also raided Pong’s Sham Shui Po bookstore, Book Punch, and seized seditious publications, including Lai’s 2024 biography, The Troublemaker: How Jimmy Lai Became a Billionaire, Hong Kong’s Greatest Dissident, and China’s Most Feared Critic, written by Mark Clifford, a former director of Lai’s Next Digital media conglomerate.

Pong Yat-ming is the same bookseller charged with running an ‘unregistered school’ for hosting a Spanish class at his shop, after the Beijing-run newspaper Wen Wei Po accused him of ‘soft resistance’. Now this. Mark Clifford was at the Far Eastern Economic Review back in the day and later editor in chief of the Standard and the SCMP, has a PhD from HKU, was executive director of the Asia Business Council, and is author of several books on Asia. He is also president of the Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong. He discusses his book on Jimmy Lai in this 2025 video. An interview with him from two weeks ago is here.

Is selling the book illegal? Does it threaten the security of the People’s Republic of China? If so, how? Is it a crime to own a copy?

The latest ramping-up of NatSec laws reduces privacy rights and the right to silence. From HKFP…

Hong Kong has introduced a new offence requiring suspects in national security investigations to surrender their passwords – or face up to one year in jail.

…Under the new rules, police can require people under national security investigation to provide passwords or help decrypt their electronic devices. Failure to do so can be punished by up to one year behind bars and a HK$100,000 fine.

Providing a false or misleading statement can be punished by up to three years’ imprisonment and a fine of HK$500,000.

Police can also compel anyone believed to know of the password or the decryption method of a device under investigation to disclose such information. Similarly, those who own, possess, control, or have authorised access to a device, as well as current or former users, can be subject to such an order.

…The amendments also increased the maximum penalty for a “foreign agent” in Hong Kong who fails to disclose information sought by the authorities – from six months to one year in jail.

A foreign agent is defined as someone acting for a foreign government, political party, or certain international organisation in Hong Kong.

The BBC adds…

The new amendments also give customs officials the power to seize items that they deem to “have seditious intention”.

…While law enforcement officials in many parts of the world have the authority to demand access to electronic devices as part of criminal investigations, the NSL covers a sweeping range of vaguely defined offences from secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with external forces.

From the Standard…

Prominent Hong Kong commentator Lau Siu-kai said the latest revisions to Article 43 implementation rules under the National Security Law allow flexible enforcement to tackle growing electronic threats. 

The amendments empower the Chief Executive and the Committee for Safeguarding National Security to respond swiftly. 

Lau highlighted increasing acts using electronic communications to harm national security, often involving foreign forces through fund transfers, false information, online incitement and financial disruption attempts. 

As physical actions become difficult locally, hostile elements are shifting to digital channels to undermine central and HKSAR authority. He views the changes as closing legal gaps and enhancing deterrence.

Lau noted the revisions draw from National Security Law implementation experience, including the 43-person subversion case and Jimmy Lai’s case, both tied to external forces, plus lessons from the Hong Kong Alliance case to fix enforcement weaknesses. 

He linked the timing to persistent Western support for anti-China figures and pressure on Hong Kong, not recent Middle East events.

Some examples of loopholes would be interesting.

From Reuters…

Urania Chiu, a law lecturer in the UK researching Hong Kong, said the new provisions interfered with fundamental liberties, including the privacy ​of communication and the ​right to a fair ⁠trial.

“The sweeping powers given to law enforcement officers without any need for judicial authorisation are grossly disproportionate to any legitimate aim the bylaw purports to achieve,” ​Chiu said.

So no right to silence where passwords are concerned in NatSec cases. This on top of: no jury; special courts with government-picked judges and a 99% conviction rate; possible limits on which lawyer you choose to defend you; and a (so far unused) provision for secret trials.

Some international legal, tech and other companies already require employees to use burner phones or cleaned/empty laptops when visiting Hong Kong. No doubt more will now.

From the government’s press release…

Safeguarding national security is a continuous endeavour with no end point. 

It must have been a while since the SCMP had an interesting op-ed. For a decade or more, most of the paper’s opinion pieces have been churned out by one David Dodwell, whose columns are mainly known as a highly effective treatment for insomnia. So we should note a rare piece that contains a bold idea. Unfortunately, it is also stupid.

The basic thesis is: Singapore does x, therefore Hong Kong must do it too. X here being Formula 1 car racing…

For Hong Kong, introducing F1 would not only tap into the massive demand of more than 200 million motorsport fans in mainland China, but it would also drive synergy between the city’s sports and convention industries, further elevating Hong Kong’s brand value on a global stage.

The development of Hong Kong’s Northern Metropolis presents a timely opportunity to build an F1 circuit.

If he was really deranged, the author would propose a permanent dedicated race circuit. To his credit, he proposes incorporating a suitable design into the Northern Metropolis street layout. Numerous benefits would follow, such as cultivation of…

…a full spectrum of local professional motorsport talent, including racing drivers, engineers and event promoters. A dedicated racetrack would also support a wide range of automotive‑related commercial activities, helping to stimulate the growth of the local automotive industry and elevate it to international standards.

High-profile international sporting events can significantly enhance a city’s image and global appeal … amplify the economic impact of such mega-events, leveraging its global reach to attract international visitors and business activities … stimulate growth across sectors such as tourism, retail, hospitality and conventions, injecting fresh momentum into Hong Kong’s economy.

In other words, yet another scheme to cram millions more people into an already overcrowded city, in the name of attracting supposedly juicy revenues that – mysteriously – no ordinary residents ever get to see.

I would guess that the author is a fan of Formula 1. Absurd-looking vehicles whizzing round and round. Men in jackets plastered with sponsors’ logos standing around looking important. A weird fixation with changing car wheels very quickly. All the pointlessness of golf, but at 100 miles an hour, and extremely loud. (The one redeeming feature of car-racing is that occasionally there are huge pile-ups in which people get burned alive, which doesn’t happen in golf but probably should.)

The conclusion…

Through forward-thinking planning and cross-sector collaboration, Hong Kong has the potential to transform F1 into a catalyst for its urban branding and industrial transformation, achieving dual gains in economic benefits and global influence.

Sure.

I sympathize with anyone who tries to think up new directions for Hong Kong. One obvious edgy suggestion to give the economy a boost would be to turn the land system on its head. Pushing up land values by keeping homes in short supply generates easy revenue for the government, but represents a self-inflicted wound on the overall economy. Making the city cheaper would at least bolster competitiveness with (say) Shenzhen for existing productive businesses. 

Otherwise, Hong Kong’s whole purpose since 1842 has been to host activities that weren’t possible on the mainland. Its success relied on being different from the hinterland – like having dependable rule of law. Even insulated from the mainland. The official line now is that greater integration will bring more opportunities for prosperity. But what if actively erasing the city’s distinctiveness means removing advantages, leaving it with fewer niches, less scope for specialization? That might help explain the endless suggestions for desperate-sounding hubs and zones.

From HKFP…

Thursday marked the first day of the public hearing into the blaze, which killed 168 people and displaced thousands living in the Tai Po residential complex. It was the city’s deadliest fire in nearly eight decades.

The inquiry is expected to disclose photos, videos, documents, testimonies, and previously undisclosed internal communication records among the contractors responsible for a major repair work at the estate.

Senior Counsel Victor Dawes, the lead lawyer for the independent committee, said in his opening statement that “human errors” had contributed to the huge life loss.

…A clip showing workers smoking on the rooftop of one Wang Fuk Court building on November 26 was played during the hearing, with Dawes pointing out that residents had long complained about the issue to contractors and authorities.

And from a subsequent report…

The independent committee tasked with investigating the deadly Wang Fuk Court fire heard on Thursday that the Housing Bureau’s Independent Checking Unit (ICU) – the body that oversees government-subsidised housing in Hong Kong – had told Will Powers Architects about upcoming inspections at the housing estate, which had been undergoing major renovation since 2024.

Will Powers Architects, the consultant firm overseeing the renovation, then allegedly alerted Prestige Construction, the main contractor.

Executives from both firms were arrested on suspicion of corruption and manslaughter following the blaze that broke out on November 26. Authorities previously said they found non-fire-retardant netting at the Tai Po residential estate, which could have contributed to the rapid spread of the blaze.

Senior Counsel Victor Dawes, lead lawyer for the committee, called the ICU’s advance notices “deeply concerning.”

Where does ultimate responsibility lie? With sub-contracted construction workers breaking the rules by smoking? With the owners and managers of the company that won the renovation contract but failed to exercise oversight on smoking and flammable materials, or to listen to residents’ concerns? Or with the all-patriots executive-led government, to which residents complained, and which manages to (for example) closely monitor old folk making ‘seditious’ posts on Facebook? The answer must be: whichever of these three actors that has the most power. 

In the HK Alliance trial…

Appearing before a designated three-judge panel at the West Kowloon Law Courts on Tuesday, Lee explained that the Alliance advocated an end to one-party rule, as such a form of governance stood in opposition to democracy.

He also said that basic civil rights, including freedom of speech, assembly, and the press, must be granted in order for civil society to organise and thrive. Only then would society at large be able to consider democratisation, he added.

“The freedom that arises [from ending one-party rule] allows people to participate in society through their own independent groups and political organisations. If you can’t even speak up, how can you talk about democracy? One-party rule… is a very, very big obstacle to democracy,” Lee said.

“Once you have a civil society, be it the intellectuals, the students, workers, women, businesspeople, or farmers, they will be able to discuss what political system works best for China. There must be a foundation for discussion before they can enter the political system,” he added.

Judge Alex Lee then asked the activist whether he meant to say that the CCP should not be in power.

The defendant replied that he was opposed to one-party rule, not the CCP’s leadership. He believed the CCP could lead the nation if the people saw it fit, he added.

One problem with Hong Kong’s old-style pan-democrats is that they saw democracy as an ideal and an end in itself rather than a means to better governance. The CCP, meanwhile, is on a different wavelength. It does not want a civil society that ‘organizes and thrives’. Note what happened to volunteers collecting food and promoting a petition after the Tai Po fire, or to a bookshop hosting Spanish lessons. The whole point of a Leninist one-party system is to ensure there are no ‘independent groups and political organisations’ in which people can participate. 

It seems absurd that these are matters before a court, and people face prison terms as a result.

In the HK Alliance subversion trial, Lee Cheuk-yan…

…argued on Tuesday that calling for an end to “one-party dictatorship” in mainland China did not mean ousting the Communist Party from its leading role under the state’s constitutional framework.

“The Communist Party can hold power, but the people should be able to choose their government,” he said on the first day of his oral testimony at West Kowloon Court.

Lee also suggested that one-party rule contradicted the constitution’s preamble, which provides for “multiparty cooperation and political consultation” under the party’s leadership.

“It is our wish that by ending one-party dictatorship, people can fully exercise their rights under the constitution,” he added.

…Lee dismissed prosecutors’ contention that the alliance used “so-called democracy” as an excuse to vilify the party.

…Lee Cheuk-yan said police had never openly stated that the alliance was a threat to the country’s safety before the present case, or cited national security grounds in banning its annual vigils.

Ultimately, this all comes down to expression of an opinion. But National Security courts have government-picked judges, no jury, and a near 100% conviction rate.

Chow Hang-tung’s statement arguing for early acquittal in the HK Alliance trial. From Brian Kern’s intro…

It’s worth stressing that, having been in prison since September 2021, she has prepared her entire defense, including this statement, from inside of a prison cell, without the aid of a word processor or the internet.

…Ultimately, what Hang-tung is portraying is two almost entirely clashing world views. According to one, citizens truly are the masters of the nation and are without question free to discuss their government and constitute it as they see fit. According to the other, it is only a supreme power entirely above the law which has the authority to dictate to its subjects what is permissible to say and do in relation to matters of governance.

In this sense, it can be said that while Hang-tung’s statement is primarily intended to address the matter at hand in the trial, it can also be read as a “statement to history,” raising issues that get straight to the heart of the political status of Hong Kong as well as freedom and human rights.

…From a political and ethical perspective, Hang-tung is saying, Of course, citizens have the right to freedom of expression. This includes expression related to matters of governance. And not only that, they have the right to choose their own political leaders. So the whole premise of the prosecution’s case is absurd; in fact, it is a perversion of the rule of law.

The whole thing is worth reading, though she perhaps unnecessarily/unwisely strays into subjects like the CCP’s non-status in Hong Kong and its treatment of Uyghurs. From the conclusion…

(76) The prosecution’s entire case is riddled with holes and leaks everywhere. Regardless of what actions the defendant incited; what methods were involved; the nature and consequences of those actions; or the defendant’s intent, the prosecution either lacked any evidence or presented no coherent facts, merely jumping between the most convenient statements available at the moment. Even though I have analyzed the prosecution’s core accusation—assuming “ending one-party rule” equals “ending the leadership of the Communist Party”—the court can see that the prosecution has still failed to prove any element of a crime.

(77) Most importantly, whether it’s “ending one-party rule” or the prosecution’s use of “ending the leadership of the Communist Party,” that is a goal that every Chinese person has the right to pursue. The prosecution tried very hard to make this goal something completely unthinkable and impossible, but they simply couldn’t find any reasonable legal or evidentiary basis.

(78) Ultimately, the fact that the Party doesn’t want anyone to talk about ending one-party rule doesn’t mean the law doesn’t allow it. The prosecution has completely failed in proving that the law “doesn’t allow it.” Throughout the prosecution’s arguments, they have been constantly subtly changing the meaning to disguise the Party’s will as law. They have changed meaning to effect, opposition to violation, motive to intent, and even mainland law to Hong Kong law.

Convincing? The NatSec court didn’t think so and rejected the application for early acquittal, and that of Lee Cheuk-yan. The trial continues today.

This is not a NatSec case, so who knows – he might not end up in prison. Or does a Wen Wei Po ‘soft resistance’ accusation tip the balance? …

Pong Yat-ming appeared at the Kowloon City Magistrates’ Courts on Thursday to stand trial for allegedly managing an unregistered school after he held a Spanish course at his bookstore, Book Punch, in April last year.

…The bookstore owner testified on Thursday that before running the Spanish course, he had researched online and come across then-education secretary Kevin Yeung’s comments in 2017 that interest classes, such as those teaching dance and acting, would not require school registration “because they are interests.”

…Founded in 2020, Book Punch, located in Sham Shui Po, occasionally runs talks and workshops related to social issues and current affairs.

Last year, Beijing-backed newspaper Wen Wei Po accused Book Punch and other bookstores of engaging in “soft resistance” over an independent book fair they were organising.

The term “soft resistance” has come to be used by Chinese and Hong Kong officials as a phrase referring to threats to national security, but they have not been specific about what it means.

For anyone who doesn’t know who this person is, look no further than the Standard in August 2024: ‘Andrew Tate placed under house arrest as new human trafficking allegations emerge involving minors’…

The Tate brothers, both former kickboxers and dual British-U.S. citizens, are already awaiting trial in Romania in a separate human trafficking case along with two Romanian women. Romanian prosecutors formally indicted all four last year.

In the new case, Romania’s anti-organized crime agency DIICOT said it is investigating allegations of human trafficking, including the trafficking of minors, sexual intercourse with a minor, forming an organized criminal group, money laundering, and influencing statements. The alleged crimes date between 2014 and 2024.

Romanian prosecutors for some reason eased off, and they left for the US by private jet to the US. From the Guardian in February 2025…

The pair are outspoken supporters of Donald Trump, and several members of the US president’s inner circle have spoken out publicly against their treatment, including Donald Trump Jr who described their detention as “absolute insanity”.

…one of Tate’s lawyers, Paul Ingrassia, is the White House liaison official for the US Department of Justice.

…The US vice-president, JD Vance, has appeared on a pro-Tate podcast.

The brothers are now in Hong Kong, staying in a luxury suite at the Rosewood and mingling with social-media followers in Lan Kwai Fong. People are wondering why Hong Kong authorities admitted the pair and whether they are here as part of promotional efforts (Asia’s pedophile tourist hub!). Also – why the Rosewood seems happy to have them as guests.

From the SCMP…

Andrew posted a photo of himself and Tristan on a luxury boat in Victoria Harbour on X on Sunday, while other posts showed the brothers visiting the Lan Kwai Fong nightlife district and a crab restaurant in Causeway Bay.

A video he posted a day earlier showed him singing alongside a dozen Asian women as his brother looked on. 

…The Immigration Department declined to comment on individual cases

(Do you mean ‘sad-looking karaoke session with a bunch of bored Mainland hookers’? The link, if you must.)

It’s hard to imagine the Hong Kong tourism PR folk seeing any benefit by engaging with an avowedly racist and misogynist ‘influencer’ (they surely do some sort of checks when they sponsor these Instagram bores). It’s perhaps more believable that the Immigration Dept does not have the pair on its stop list. The authorities seem more fixated on national-security ‘absconders’ and foreign political and media critics. And the city’s top leadership today is perhaps not as worldly as its predecessors, and quite possibly have never heard of Tate, whose fan base largely comprises inadequate teenage boys.

The pair are wanted in the UK. Although Britain suspended its extradition treaty with Hong Kong following the passage of the NatSec Law in 2020, the city’s government could presumably still – if it wanted – deport the brothers as undesirable, on a plane to Heathrow (economy class). That would be a ‘good Hong Kong story’.

As for the Rosewood – maybe New World really needs the money.