Open-source intelligence (OSINT)
🔻 IMPORTANT 【重要】The 55th Six-monthly Report (UK)
▪️ The Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office published the six-month report on Hong Kong: January to June 2024 on September 12, 2024. It’s written by 12 agencies and public bodies, like the British equivalent of the NSA, GCHQ and Secret Intelligence Service (MI6). Thus, as I mentioned before, it’s written by the IC, who are independent yet in charge of assessing the political situation of Hong Kong for Foreign Secretary (David Lammy). Although some opposition figures -Simon Cheng- and the HKSARG responded to it timely, there are several imperative points in the report in contrast to their commentaries.
(1) The response of the HKSARG on the day of publication is just 4,500 words of a combination of ‘copy and paste’ templates prepared before the latest six-monthly report on Hong Kong and being applicable to any other political events. Hence, the HKSARG comment is only empty in contrast to the RFA report. This indicates that the HKSARG routinely exchanged blame to make a ‘patriotic’ alibi in the eyes of the public and Beijing.
(2) The reduction of the news, ‘UK charges three with working for Hong Kong intelligence’ (May 13, 2024) is fallen into the category of transnational repression against dissidents of Hong Kong -this category is mentioned in the report - yet it was omitted because the event didn’t take place in Hong Kong. It’s a UK event. The report is strictly limited to the reporting period and place.
(3) The report is well-written and self-contained. The purpose was successfully achieved, as we can confirm on page 4 as FORWARD by Foreign Secretary (David Lammy). Simon Cheng said that there is no subjective or analytical commentary in this report, yet it does contain the conclusion and commentary. FORWARD is the most important part for the IC because the decision maker got the clear picture from this report as professionally designed by the agencies contributed to it. What is the conclusion? For the UK, ‘One Country, Two Systems’ means the fifty-year unchanged clause. The colony must be kept intact even after the handover to China in 1997, yet it has been dramatically and repeatedly violated throughout the reporting period by different degrees and scales. Is this true? Yes, it’s true, as perfectly reported by GCHQ and MI6. However, the main question aroused from the opposition or neutral Hong Kong citizens is what should you (the UK) do about the sheer violations? There are still no reciprocal actions taken on the point, as we know. The report doesn’t answer their action plans.
(4) In general, it’s a neat chronological read based on BBC reports. Details, such as if a court ruling is unprecedented or not, are tightly recorded; in other cases, if a dual national is convicted and arrested under the NSL or not, it’s recorded. If the arrestee is released without charge or not, it’s also strictly followed. The report is complete. This is in sharp contrast to all Hong Kong media, in which local ‘journalists’ reports are always segmented lazily and, in most cases, out of context and chronological links. This is why we must seek the original materials to confirm the points and follow cases actively. The 55th Six-month Report is the best Hong Kong-related reading in the field of politics. I highly recommend this to citizens because it’s a compilation of facts well organized into categories unlike propaganda. If you say propaganda, the HKSARG response is real propaganda because it was just a pile of templates used for superficial PR stunts.
(5) If a society or colony can be frozen for fifty years even after the handover to the original host country? The unprecedented answer is the present Hong Kong and Macau (‘Little Hong Kong’ ruled by the same ruling class as Hong Kong). The report mentioned the term coined by EIU, a ‘hybrid regime.’(P.34) Yes, the HKG or HKSARG is a hybrid regime, yet a hybrid regime composed of what? It doesn’t mention it fully. My answer is that HKG / HKSARG is a hybrid regime of the UK and PRC. It does fit the whole context and political disposition of the UK report. In which, the stance of the UK is to protect the colony and keep it intact for fifty years or undoubtedly beyond that, because there are about 2.9 million BNOs in Hong Kong, including the dual national civil servants and their families in the establishment. The number of British dual nationals is almost equal with the number of workers in this city. This dual nationality among the population is the basis of the hybrid regime of the UK and PRC. And this is why Chris Patten criticizes the HKSARG as ‘traitors.’ From the British side, the HKSARG or the majority of the establishment are British nationals, while nationals same time as the Chinese national. This highly antagonistic contradiction is not in the interest of the people of Hong Kong. I agree with Chris Patten on this. He can rationally call them traitors simply because the bureaucratic capitalists and their families are dual nationals. On this, one suggestion is that the UK should fully expose the list of the dual nationals in the establishment. This could be helpful to both the UK and PRC. Why doesn’t HKSARG investigate and publish such data to people? It’s undoubtedly unfit for the official political rhetoric of ‘patriotism.’ If they are ‘patriots’ to the UK or PRC? The answer is the two-faced HKSARG, the hybrid regime of the UK and PRC, is still protecting the national interest of the UK. Hence, the UK still doesn’t have any intention of annihilating it while the HKG is their creation, wants to preserve it for fifty years or beyond even after the handover. This also externally explains why a color revolution in Hong Kong differs from any other societies. In other words, the UK and the HKSARG - including the entire local vested interest - are not in real mutual antagonism ultimately. This shouldn’t be misread in the report. The report is sharply conservative.
(6) Read USE OF SEDITION LAWS UNDER THE CRIMES ORDINANCE: this part must be cited because it’s clear about the ruling in contrast to Hong Kong media reports.
Tam Tak-chi
As recorded in the previous Six-monthly Reports, activist Tam Tak-chi sought leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence, after being found guilty of seven counts of “uttering seditious words” and given a 21-month prison sentence in 2022. Tam, citing English case law, submitted a judgment concerning the constitutionality of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago’s Sedition Act, delivered by the Judicial Committee of the UK Privy Council in October 2023, to the Court of Appeal for consideration. Contrary to rulings of the Hong Kong courts, the Privy Council ruled that intention to incite violence is an essential element of sedition offences.
On 7 March 2024, the Court of Appeal dismissed Tam’s application. The court ruled that intention to incite violence is “not a necessary ingredient” of sedition, and seditious intention must be interpreted with reference to the “specific legal and social landscape” in Hong Kong. In particular, the Court said it had “reservations” about the applicability of the case law cited, describing the Judicial Committee’s views as “necessarily limited to the Trinidad Sedition Act”.
Tam subsequently applied for leave to appeal to the CFA. The appeal was not yet scheduled by the end of the reporting period.
(P.24)
(7) Martin Lee and Jimmy Lai were not masterminds of the Anti-Extradition Law Amendment Bill Movement. There is still no organizer(s) of the whole movement confirmed and ruled by the court until today. Those arrestees are ‘scapegoated’ front-line operatives and ‘star’ PR agents, just contributors in the court terminology, because the true masterminds of AELABM are still in the establishment. See 18 AUGUST 2019 PROTEST CONVICTION APPEALS:
As recorded in the last Six-monthly Report, seven pro-democracy politicians, activists and pan-democrat legislators, including veteran Martin Lee Chu-ming and Apple Daily publisher Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, appealed against their convictions for organising as well as participating in the 18 August 2019 protest.
In August 2023, the Court of Appeal cleared all seven defendants of organising an unauthorised assembly but maintained their convictions for knowingly taking part in it. In December the same year, the Court of Appeal allowed the defendants to appeal to the CFA against their convictions for taking part, acknowledging that the case involved a “great and general importance” despite ruling the evidence of their participation as “overwhelming”. At the same time, the DoJ sought leave to appeal to the CFA against their ‘organising’ acquittals.
On 23 February this year, the CFA refused the DoJ’s application. In its judgment, the CFA noted that the DoJ had failed to establish “well-founded” arguments. They ruled that it was not reasonably arguable to state that a person who organises the route is the person who organises the procession, and therefore the defendants were organisers as they had led the procession throughout. The CFA made clear the fact that Lai and others had marched at the head of the procession, holding a banner and chanting slogans “did not support the inference that the defendants had organised the procession”.
(P.26)
🔻 NEWS / FACTs 【新聞/事實】
▪️英政府最新《香港報告》被指較以往溫和 港府仍以4500字長文反駁
Link 🔗
▪️HKSAR Government strongly condemns and rejects the UK six-monthly report on Hong Kong
Link 🔗
▪️Six-monthly report on Hong Kong: January to June 2024
Link 🔗
▪️Departments, agencies and public bodies
Link 🔗
🔻 COMMENT 【評語】
In conclusion, the 55th Six-monthly Report on Hong Kong: January to June 2024 is a quality chronology written by world-famous GCHQ and MI6 on the political situation of Hong Kong during the reporting period. The HKSARG is miserably incapable of producing such a high standard of political document by any of its components.
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favour of fair use.
Comments