Apple Daily and the end of Hong Kong
Yes, Hong Kong is changing. Yes, it is because of the National Security Law. Yes, I did tell you so.
I don’t like to boast. I’m British, and middle class. At the most, I like to exude the kind of smugness that comes from having too many degrees to be employable and using big words unnecessarily. But the recent case of the arrest of several Apple Daily executives for breach of the National Security Law clause on “conspiracy to collude with foreign forces” is somewhat of an ‘I told you so’ moment for me.
I say this because not long ago I wrote another newsletter about the National Security Law in Hong Kong, in which I went through the law and how it would be interpreted from a Chinese perspective. Yes, I do claim to understand the Chinese government’s perspective, but you can feel free to fight me on that. I pointed to a few cases where the law had already been enacted, and added that the democracy aspect of Hong Kong’s governance would be eroded until “the CCP will have ‘no choice’ but to swoop in and take any semblance of self-rule away from Hong Kong, citing fears of mass chaos and the financial collapse of the island non-nation.”
Now, I hesitate to say that I was correct. Events so far have not been enough to confirm or deny either way what the future of Hong Kong will be. But I point to the recent cases unfolding as we speak in Hong Kong as evidence that I was at least heading in the right direction. It’s almost as if I’ve gone out of my way to develop expertise in this area.
Why am I bringing all of this up now? Well, at the time I wrote the last newsletter, I received an email response from one of my readers basically explaining why what I wrote was both pointless and wrong (they may disagree with this summary, but I don’t want to share what they said exactly due to privacy). I love getting emails from you guys by the way, always write if you feel like it — whether you agree or disagree with me!
The reader informed me that Hong Kong is a part of China (this was never disputed), that everything China did was legal (this was never disputed), and that the Chinese central government has the authority over the HK Legco (never disputed). Where I began to disagree with his opinion is where he discussed the repercussions of the National Security Law.
Apparently people are wrong to blame China or to fear the heavy hand of authoritarian rule. Instead, the real causes of Hong Kong’s grievances (soaring house prices, flat salaries, etc.) are due to local billionaire tyrants, and all the things Hong Kongers enjoy (expanded Legco, more democracy, freedom etc.) are thanks to Beijing. This isn’t necessarily an incorrect assessment, at least on a surface level. Hong Kong does have some deep rooted problems to do with finance and equality, which I would not dispute, and in fact know about first hand because I lived there for 3 years.
But the assertion that Beijing intends Hong Kong to be a test case for self governance, that the 2019 protesters were aiming their fear and anger at the wrong people, and that locals in general don’t understand their own social and political situation didn’t sit right with me. I’m not pro- or anti-China. I really do try to be as objective as possible in my newsletters, and I try and see things from the CCP/mainland’s perspective as often as possible, hence the historical aspect of many of the newsletters. This means looking at the facts of the situation, the most important of those facts being that China is authoritarian, openly despises Western forms of governance, and believes territorial integrity is one of the most important foundations of the PRC’s longevity.
I’ll admit I didn’t respond to the reader at the time. Not because I didn’t have anything to say, but mainly because I thought it would be pretty pointless to say “No, the National Security Law hasn’t changed everything about Hong Kong literally 6 months after it was passed. But give it a year.” I wasn’t necessarily biding my time, I just had a feeling that a natural unfolding of events would make my point better than I could. I’m also not trying to call that reader out or bully them into accepting my perspective in retrospect (and if you unsubscribe after reading this entry I totally understand). I just thought the Nat Sec Law deserved its trial run of a year before we passed judgement.
Well, it’s been a year. Let’s see what’s changed.
The case of Apple Daily
Founded in 1995, Apple Daily is one of Hong Kong’s most well-known and trusted newspapers. It was launched by Jimmy Lai as an opposition paper, critical of the CCP, but it is also known for its tabloid, sensationalist style. Lai himself was born in Guangzhou, but smuggled into Hong Kong as a child to work as a labourer in a garment factory. He worked his way up the factory floor, eventually becoming manager, and using his money to start his own now internationally recognised clothing brand Giordano.
Lai has been active in politics since the Tiananmen Square incident of 1989, founding his first publication, Next Magazine, which aimed to champion both free speech and democracy. As the handover of Hong Kong from the UK to China approached, he founded Apple Daily intending it to be a similar bastion of justice. Last year, Lai was arrested, and last month he was sentenced to 14 months in prison for unauthorised assembly - for participating in two protests in 2019. Other charges piled on could lead to him serving life in prison.
On June 17th, police raided Apple Daily headquarters, arrested 5 executives in their homes, and froze the company’s assets. They have been accused of “conspiracy to collude with foreign forces,” due to the publication of around 30 ‘questionable’ articles. According to police, the articles in question, dating back as far as 2019, “played a very crucial part in the conspiracy, which provided ammunition for foreign countries, institutions and organisations to impose sanctions.”
Hong Kong’s Chief Executive Carrie Lam has warned people to not “accuse the Hong Kong authorities of using the national security law to suppress the media or stifle freedom of expression.” But so far she has offered no guidance on how others in the media space can possibly avoid contravention of the law, especially if offences that took place in 2019, before the law was introduced, may also be seen as violations.
The head of Hong Kong police’s national security division, Steve Li Kwai-wah, also warned that those who collude with the arrested will “pay a hefty price” and be “left with regrets,” a strong warning to stay neutral if I ever heard one.
What does the case of Apple Daily show if not at least some change in the government’s attitude towards dissent, if not mere distaste for the current regime? Even if other papers continue to toe the party line, will they be held accountable for the thoughts, words, and actions of their owners or major shareholders? What about other industries or spaces - does the punishment for publication of seditious news extend to university student newspapers too?
These are questions that cannot be answered by reading the letter of the National Security Law. The law has been kept deliberately vague, to the extent that any questioning of the law can simply be met with a shrug and a dismissive wave of the hand. And the case of Apple Daily is not the only ongoing battle for generic ‘human rights’ in Hong Kong that has been brewing due to the law’s introduction.
Other recent cases
Apple Daily is not the first media company in Hong Kong to come under greater scrutiny. Public broadcaster Radio Television Hong Kong (RTHK) has issued a series of statements that have seen the company limit its own releases, fire award-winning journalists, and pledge to delete all content more than a year old from the internet. The saga started when the government accused the broadcaster of violating the one-country two-systems policy after one of its journalists asked WHO assistant director general Bruce Aylward if it would reconsider Taiwan’s membership following its handling of the covid-19 pandemic.
In terms of society, any sort of protest movement or expression of public sentiment is closely monitored. The Tiananmen Square vigil was banned for the second year in a row, and stories that were to be aired on the massacre were quickly pulled from schedules. The government also continues to amend the city’s education so that subjects are taught through a ‘patriotic’ lens and certain subjects such as IT and Mandarin focus on national security.
Let us also not forget the ongoing trial of the 47 pro-democracy figures “accused of taking part in an unofficial primary election last July with an intention to subvert state power.” Only 12 of the 47 have been granted bail so far. They face life imprisonment.
Politicians are being squeezed in more subtle, pernicious ways too. Councillors sitting on the Legco have been ordered to swear allegiance to the government if they want to take their seats. But even if they do, a ‘negative list’ compiled by the pro-government lawmakers could see past mistakes used as grounds for dismissal. Offences could include “taking part in or coordinating a primary election for democratic candidates held in July last year, lending out their offices as polling stations during the primary, and signing a primary election manifesto.” As a result, up to 170 pro-democracy councillors could be disqualified from their elected positions.
The pro-democracy camp won 388 out of 479 seats in the November 2019 district council elections, and currently controls 17 out of 18 districts. Losing 170 of those seats would be a huge blow for the upcoming December elections, and could well tip the balance in favour of the pro-government camp, especially as around 40 pro-democracy district councillors have quit in the past three months, some for personal reasons, others because they refuse to take the oath.
These stories are really just the ones that make the front pages, but there are plenty of examples that get overlooked, mainly because they’re so small they barely register. Pro-democracy books have been removed from public libraries. Public broadcaster RTHK fired a pro-democracy radio host. And just yesterday, a 40-year-old man was arrested by a force of 20 police officers for flying a flag reading “liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times,” outside his window. When the police broke down his door, he apparently ‘uttered seditious words’. What he said exactly will likely remain a mystery forever. Especially as trials held under the National Security Law act can be held behind closed doors, with no jury.
Predicting the future
I’m not trying to revel in Hong Kong’s misery just to score a few internet points. But the sub-heading of my previous newsletter was “The Chinese government is only just getting started in its bid to completely crush the pro-Democracy movement and assert its dominance over Hong Kong society,” and well… it was right. Sorry.
I don’t usually like to predict the future in my newsletters, but I do like to make educated guesses based on the fact that I’m pretty well-versed on the subject of China. I’ve spent 10 years learning the history, language, culture, politics, governance, and (a very small bit of) geography of the PRC, and so I don’t say anything lightly or without thinking very deeply about it first.
Again, this isn’t to say that I can accurately predict the future. It may well be that Hong Kong may be a more liveable city in the future, all thanks to Beijing. Of course, China is so good at making sure that its young people can enjoy full employment, that their major cities are affordable, and that no one suffers from poverty. Unlike Hong Kong, which may as well be a slum. (This was sarcasm, please click the links).
Of course, one could continue to argue that the closure of Apple Daily and getting rid of Hong Kong’s pro-democracy politicians and activists means nothing. On the contrary, it may help the city run more harmoniously. If the city rids itself of its tycoons and decentralised media, it could reach new heights. The lives of the people could be freed from the shackles of politics, campuses would be shielded from the burden of activism, and a new education system will bring the people closer together under the banner of Chinese nationalism.
But at the end of the day, that’s not a prediction I’m willing to make.
Sources
BBC, Jimmy Lai: The Hong Kong billionaire's last interview as a free man
China Digital Times, TIMELINE: TWO MONTHS OF TURMOIL AT HONG KONG PUBLIC BROADCASTER RTHK
The Guardian, “Hong Kong leader refuses to say how media can avoid arrest in wake of Apple Daily raids”
The Guardian, “Hong Kong police arrest editor-in-chief of Apple Daily newspaper in raids”
HKFP, Over 20 police deploy to arrest man for alleged ‘sedition’ over Hong Kong protest flag outside window
HKFP, Hong Kong pulls more democracy books from library shelves citing security law concerns
HKFP, Hong Kong’s RTHK fires popular pro-democracy radio host Tsang Chi-ho
HKFP, Explainer: Hong Kong national security crackdown – month 11
HKFP, Hong Kong court grants bail to activist Owen Chow pending national security trial
Reuters, EXCLUSIVE HK’s Apple Daily to shut within days, says Jimmy Lai adviser
Sinobabble, What does the National Security Law actually say again?