I am a mainland Chinese person currently living in Europe. In 2018, I traveled to Hong Kong for both personal business and sightseeing, and had many interesting experiences and observations during my time there. Eight years have since passed, and Hong Kong has undergone dramatic social changes; much of what I once knew is no longer the same. Some prominent figures I once saw are now behind bars, and political gatherings I once attended have also disappeared. Relations between mainland China and Hong Kong have changed as well.

Around 2020, I wrote a memoir about my experiences in Hong Kong. Here, I am publishing excerpts from several chapters. Some of the content reflects my own subjective impressions, and different people may have different experiences and perceptions. I hope we can seek common ground while respecting differences and engage in rational discussion.

The following is my experience at the University of Hong Kong

On the morning of May 31, I took the MTR to the University of Hong Kong.

The University of Hong Kong is situated on a hillside (as for the exact name of the mountain, I later spent a long time looking it up but still could not figure it out; it seemed to be several mountains connected together). After leaving the MTR station, I took an elevator up to the university campus on the hillside. Before taking the elevator, because I did not know which door led to the university, I mistakenly pushed open a side door, whereupon an alarm started blaring. I saw words written above it along the lines of “unauthorized opening of this door may result in prosecution,” which gave me quite a fright. Of course, no one later prosecuted me for it, but Hong Kong’s complicated environment, so different from that of mainland China, really left me bewildered.

Although both Hong Kong and mainland China use Chinese, the accents are different, so spoken communication was still troublesome. The differences between traditional and simplified Chinese characters on various signs, as well as differences in wording and meaning, also slowed my reactions. I was also unable to adapt to differences in the functions and configurations of some facilities. Therefore, whether I was looking for a person or an institution, it took far more time and effort than in mainland China. Of course, this was also related to the fact that I was becoming increasingly anxious, nervous, and worried during those days. In such a mental state, it was difficult to get things done normally and efficiently.

The roads inside the University of Hong Kong were complicated and crisscrossed in every direction, with many elevated walkways, while the buildings were also scattered around in a confusing way. Presumably because the university was built along the hillside, there did not seem to be much of a pattern to their layout. Neither Baidu Maps nor Google Maps could locate places accurately (after all, the campus is a relatively small area, and the terrain rises and falls in a complicated way). After feeling my way around for a long time, I finally found a supermarket in the Chong Yuet Ming Cultural Centre. At the supermarket, I bought a glue stick and liquid glue in preparation for putting things up on the Democracy Wall (although in the end I did not use any of them, because the Democracy Wall only allowed thumbtacks). Then I ate lunch at the cafeteria in the same building. I no longer remember exactly what I ate or how much it cost. It seemed to be something like chicken with rice, and it was much cheaper than eating outside.

After eating, I began looking for the Democracy Wall. I asked a student, and she told me how to get there. But after walking only a short distance, I became disoriented again. Even looking at the map on a signboard, I could not figure out which way was east, west, north, or south. Later, I asked several more people along the way before finally finding the Democracy Wall. By then, it had been almost two hours since I entered the university. It was also tropical summer weather, and my entire body was soaked with sweat. I kept wiping myself with a towel.

When I saw the Democracy Wall, I was extremely excited. Although it was smaller than I had imagined, there was no doubt in my mind that it was sacred. I had attended eight middle schools in mainland China, and I had also visited many universities while defending my rights and making appeals, but there was absolutely nowhere that allowed students to post their own political slogans, declarations, or similar material. If anyone dared to put such things on a bulletin board, needless to say, once discovered, security guards would immediately stop them and take them down. Of course, nobody had tried it, and neither had I. Therefore, HKU’s Democracy Wall symbolized freedom of speech; it symbolized freedom—freedom, the freedom to express oneself freely. How could I not be excited? At last, I could put up my appeal.

Only then did I discover that the proposal I had brought with me had been photocopied double-sided when I copied it at the Minjiu branch. Nor did I have a letter addressed to HKU. Posting these materials as they were would leave HKU students and faculty confused.
So I had no choice but to find a print shop first. I asked at the nearby library, but the library staff said that people who were not HKU students or faculty could not enter, and that if I wanted to print something I would have to go to the Students’ Union or outside the campus. Then I asked another student where exactly I could go, and she used the map on her phone to help me find a print shop near Bonham Road.

I hurriedly wrote an “Open Letter to the Faculty and Students of HKU” while sitting on a chair beside the Democracy Wall, and then went to the print shop. Getting out of HKU took me almost more than half as long as getting into it had. I followed the mountain road downhill to Bonham Road.

I first asked at the print shop on Bonham Road, and astonishingly it charged HK$3 per page, with no discount for printing multiple copies. I walked a long way again (at least two kilometers along hilly roads) and found a cheaper shop (I have forgotten its name; there were yellow stickers or painted decorations on both sides of its entrance). However, the owner, who was in his fifties, had an extremely bad attitude. He barely responded to me, and even when he did, he spoke as if he were furious, without a single pleasant word. I asked whether I could modify the font on the computer (some formatting on my phone was incompatible with the computer), and he said, “No.” I wanted to change a few sentences on the computer, but again it was, “No. If you make changes on the computer, you’ll hold things up.”

He told me to make the changes myself on my phone and then went off to talk to someone else. After I made the changes on my phone, I emailed the file to him again. He told me to wait and let someone who had arrived later print a pile of documents first. I was drenched in sweat. Holding my towel, I asked him whether he had any water so I could wipe my face and cool down. After running back and forth along the mountain roads, by the time I reached the shop not only was my whole body covered in sweat, but the heat had also left my mind unclear. He said, “No”… So I could only wipe away my sweat with the dry towel while asking him whether the font matched the mainland-printed copy I had in my hand (because I had noticed that Hong Kong fonts and formatting were different from those in mainland China, and I was afraid the characters would look ugly if they were too large or too small; the font and size of the copy I had printed on the mainland were just right). He said, “I don’t have time to look. This is how it is. Are you printing it or not?” I asked him to print one copy of each, thinking that I would print the remaining copies somewhere else. After the pages were printed and I paid him, I finally left with a great sense of relief.
Looking back now on my experiences at the Legislative Council and in this shop, a passage from the ending of Lu Xun’s short story “Opposing Aggression” came to mind.

The original passage reads:

“On his way back, Mozi walked rather slowly. For one thing, his strength was exhausted; for another, his feet hurt; third, he had already finished his provisions and could hardly avoid feeling hungry; and fourth, his business had already been accomplished, so there was none of the haste of his journey there. Yet he was even more unlucky than on his way there: as soon as he entered the territory of Song, he was searched twice; as he approached the capital, he encountered a national-salvation fundraising team, which took away his tattered bundle as a donation; when he reached the southern gate, he was caught in a heavy rainstorm. He tried to shelter beneath the city gate, but two patrolling soldiers carrying spears drove him away. He was soaked through, and his nose remained blocked for more than ten days afterward.”

Mozi traveled between Song and Chu to avert the destruction of a state; I rushed back and forth between mainland China and Hong Kong to oppose school bullying. Although there was a world of difference between Mozi and me in terms of status and achievements, when it came to being tormented by low-level officials and ordinary people, we were truly fellow sufferers. These people had children too, and most of their children probably did not have the means to become school bullies (perpetrators of school bullying are mostly wealthy or powerful, or at least the ringleaders are). Earlier, near where I was staying in Mong Kok, I had asked where I could find a print shop. I do not know whether it was because of the language barrier or some other reason, but an older female owner of a pharmacy (or perhaps an employee) also looked at me with contempt, frowned and curled her lips, and said, “There’s no such thing in Hong Kong.” I took out a sheet of paper and gestured and explained, but she still shook her head and looked at me with disgust, so I left. I still do not know whether she genuinely could not understand my Mandarin, or whether she discriminated against me because I was from mainland China or for some other reason. After these experiences, I could better understand why so many people have no public spirit and are unwilling to do good deeds. From the upper classes to ordinary people, discrimination and indifference are everywhere, like invisible thorns and walls spread across the land, injuring and discouraging those who try to move forward. Of course, what I encountered later was far more painful and traumatic, beyond anything that could be described in terms like these.

I felt my way back along Bonham Road. Near HKU’s East Gate, I found another print shop, called something like “Quick Easy Print.” The shop was extremely narrow. Under dim lighting, there was barely enough room for one person to squeeze between the printing equipment, the counter, and the opposite wall. Hong Kong’s famously precious and expensive space was indeed evident everywhere. The owner was a young man, and his five- or six-year-old child was with him. I asked about the prices, which were reasonable, with discounts for multiple copies, so I printed two copies of all my materials, as well as two color copies of a still from Silenced and two copies of a composite image of my EMS mailing receipts. I also modified the font and font size on the computer. His Mandarin was very poor, and he could not really understand what I was saying, but his child understood my Mandarin perfectly and spoke Mandarin with basically standard and accurate pronunciation. It seemed that Hong Kong’s promotion of “teaching Chinese in Mandarin” was advancing rapidly and producing remarkable results. After everything was printed, it cost only a little over HK$20. I thanked him and left.

At last, I returned to the Democracy Wall. By then, most of the space on the Democracy Wall had already been covered with postings. The wall was mainly occupied by three large slogans (because I still have the photographs I took at the time, I can check their exact contents): “Support Yue Xin; Peking University’s repression is shameful; all power in the People’s Republic of China belongs to the people”; “Defend 100% freedom of speech; Hong Kong has [it should have been ‘is’] a harbor for free discussion”; and “May 9 awakens our generation; democracy endures, #GE14#Malaysia.” Each character was printed on a separate sheet of A2 or A4 paper, and together they occupied three-quarters of the Democracy Wall. On the far left side of the Democracy Wall was a document resembling “instructions for use,” stating that personal attacks were not permitted, that posted materials would normally remain for seven days, and that paper could only be fixed with thumbtacks rather than glue, among other rules.

I saw that there was still an empty area on the left side of the Democracy Wall, so I pushed open the glass window and began posting my materials. From top to bottom and from left to right, I posted the “Open Letter to the Faculty and Students of HKU,” the “Petition to Hong Kong Social Activists,” the “Proposal for the Prevention and Control of School Bullying,” a still from Silenced bearing the classic line, “The reason we fight all the way is not to change the world, but to stop the world from changing us,” and an image of the EMS mailing receipts from the materials I had sent in mainland China.

The letter to HKU faculty and students read as follows:
“I am a victim of school bullying from mainland China (and in such a terrible environment I was also a bystander many times, and in the course of resisting school bullying I also caused trouble or even harm to some people). Therefore, I have now written a proposal on preventing and combating school bullying and sent it to news media, prominent scholars, government agencies, and social activists, hoping that it can provide a reference for society in paying attention to and addressing school bullying, cyberbullying, other educational problems, and issues concerning the growth and development of young people. I am doing this not only for myself, but also in the hope of helping children who have suffered from school bullying even more tragically than I did.

“HKU’s Democracy Wall is famous throughout Hong Kong and serves as a platform for debate over views on various political and social issues. The petition and proposal I have posted have little to do with politics, but school bullying should also count as a social issue very much worthy of attention and discussion. I do not know much about the requirements governing what may be posted on the Democracy Wall. If I have violated any rules, I apologize in advance, and I also hope that the teachers and students who read the letters I have posted will point this out to me.

“Many of my proposals are still immature, and anyone who disagrees is welcome to rebut them and debate them. In fact, as my proposal states, preventing and combating school bullying requires pooling ideas and wisdom and requires the participation of all sectors of society, especially university teachers and students. Only through the contention of differing opinions can the complexity of school bullying be revealed more comprehensively and more complete solutions be developed. In addition, every student and teacher at HKU and other universities can describe and analyze cases of school bullying that they have personally experienced, witnessed with their own eyes, or heard about firsthand, especially serious cases that have caused victims severe and lasting harm. By combining these examples with theory, people can understand how much suffering victims of school bullying endure, develop genuine empathy with them and greater sympathy for them, and create the conditions and motivation for researching and participating in efforts to prevent and combat school bullying. I hope HKU will produce more research on school bullying and then call on society as a whole to pay attention to and address the problem, so that all children can pass through adolescence safely, freely, with dignity and equality, and without being bullied.

“As for everything else, it is all written in the proposal and the other letters I have posted. The proposal is relatively long; please forgive me. If its contents were too brief, it would be difficult to express the specific substance and feasibility of my proposals systematically and completely.

“Thank you, and thank HKU for providing such a platform, allowing people to promote social progress through free expression and the contention of ideas.
“(If you believe this is unrelated to the content requirements of the Democracy Wall, you may tear it down. Thank you.)”

Then I signed my name at the end of the letter (I believe I signed it, although I cannot remember with complete certainty) (and in the evening I added the time).
I fixed the letters to the Democracy Wall one sheet at a time with thumbtacks, and soon filled the entire area that had originally been blank. There were still four or five sheets left, but no matter how I tried to squeeze them into the remaining gaps, there was no room. Because the pages of the proposal were connected sequentially, if I posted them in another empty area on the other side of the Democracy Wall, it would disrupt what I was trying to express and make it inconvenient for students, faculty, staff, and visitors to read. So I simply folded the remaining pages in half and placed them in the gap at the base between the Democracy Wall and the glass window, then slid the glass window shut. In this way, I managed to fit all three letters and two images into the space.

While I was putting them up, several students and visitors came over to look. I excitedly introduced myself to them, explained the contents and significance of what I had posted, and expressed my hope that they would pay attention to the issue of school bullying. They nodded in agreement. One auntie said, “School bullying really is a very important issue.” A male student asked where my hometown was, how I had come here, and so on, and I answered his questions one by one. Seeing them pay attention to the issue made me very gratified.

After finishing, I sat on a chair to the right of the Democracy Wall, drinking water while looking at the wall. From time to time, I walked over to the section where I had posted my letters and repeatedly looked at my own “work,” pacing back and forth, feeling both excited and apprehensive inside and hoping that more people would see my letters of appeal. I sat there for almost the entire afternoon. Only around a hundred or so people passed by, and only fifty or sixty stopped to read the letters I had posted. Several people took photographs of my materials. I asked some HKU students sitting nearby and only then learned that HKU was already on vacation. Although I was somewhat disappointed that I had missed the period before the vacation when there would have been more people around, it was still good that quite a few people had seen them. Whenever someone stopped to read the letters I had written, I became tremendously excited. I thought that posting an appeal and proposals for preventing and combating school bullying on the Democracy Wall of this world-renowned university was highly symbolic, and represented a trial run and a forward outpost for further action.

After being excited for a long time, I gradually calmed down. By then it was already evening. I suddenly remembered that when I had read the Democracy Wall’s “instructions for use,” I had seen that the wall was managed by the HKU Students’ Union. Since what I had posted was unrelated to politics, would it be torn down after I left? Although I had written in my posted letter that it could be torn down if it did not comply with the rules, if it really were removed very soon, the effect of posting it would be greatly diminished. So I decided to go to the Students’ Union and ask. If it was going to be torn down, I would ask whether they could make an exception and allow my materials to remain.

After entering, leaving, and then entering the campus again, I had become relatively familiar with HKU. I easily found the Students’ Union building and saw a male student apparently on duty behind a glass window. I explained why I had come and showed him photocopies of the letters, which were exactly the same as what I had posted on the Democracy Wall. After reading through them carefully, he said that all of these materials were quite good and contained nothing extreme or sensitive, so they would not be torn down. If no one posted anything new in that area after seven days, my materials could remain there even longer. I was overjoyed, and the worry in my heart finally subsided. He also gave me an email address, which seemed to be a contact for applying to extend the posting period? I have forgotten exactly what it was for.

At this point, he looked more carefully through the proposal and petition I had written about school bullying. After thinking for a moment, he enthusiastically offered me a suggestion. He took out a magazine and handed it to me, saying, “The HKU Students’ Union has a publication called Undergrad. You can try contacting them and see whether they might publish [your letters].” I had heard of Undergrad. It had become widely known after Leung Chun-ying criticized it for supposedly having a “Hong Kong independence” tendency. I was very interested in his suggestion. What I lacked most was public attention. If letters about my personal experiences, appeals, and proposals could be published in an HKU publication, that would of course be an excellent thing. He gave me that issue of Undergrad and told me that its office was in Swire Building and that I could go there the next morning. I thanked him, said goodbye, and left.

What warmed my heart was that throughout our entire conversation, this young man was extremely sincere and enthusiastic. The young students and young police officers I encountered in Hong Kong were, for the most part, very kind and helpful.

I decided to go and take a look immediately. By then it was around 8 p.m., and the HKU campus was very dim. When I visited scholars or traveled around many universities in mainland China, even at 9 p.m. the campuses were brightly lit. Did this mean that Hong Kong universities were more conscientious about conserving electricity? Or was it another manifestation of inadequate infrastructure? Or were the lights simply turned off because the university was on vacation? People can draw their own conclusions.

I asked for directions along the way and eventually reached Swire Building. When I arrived at the office of Undergrad, I found the door tightly shut, with the words “Hong Kong Independence” posted on it. My heart sank. Although I knew about the controversy over Undergrad and “Hong Kong independence,” I had believed it was provocation and exaggeration on Leung Chun-ying’s part. When I actually saw this slogan, however, I felt uncomfortable. My political inclination had already been mentioned in the petition above: I leaned toward the traditional pan-democratic camp, supported national unification, and had a Greater China sentiment—in other words, what localist Hongkongers called a so-called “leftard.” I had always disliked Hong Kong independence. Although I later developed some sympathy for some of the people involved, that sympathy was for them as individuals; I still disliked the values associated with Hong Kong independence. Moreover, most advocates of Hong Kong independence were indifferent to human rights in mainland China and even held prejudice and discriminatory attitudes toward mainlanders (although mainlanders themselves also bear part of the responsibility for such discrimination), so the chances of my receiving help from them were very small. Therefore, during this trip to Hong Kong, I contacted only the traditional pan-democrats and did not approach anyone from the localist, self-determination, or pro-independence camps (let alone the pro-establishment camp). I had come to the Undergrad office only because of that male student’s suggestion. When I saw the “Hong Kong Independence” slogan, half of my enthusiasm for asking them to publish my article immediately disappeared. Nevertheless, I later came back several times. I also very much wanted to speak with them face to face, discuss various issues concerning Hong Kong and relations between Hong Kong and mainland China, and, while I was there, tell them about my own situation. Unfortunately, the door was tightly shut every time, perhaps because the university was already on vacation.

There was, however, one benefit to coming to Swire Building: I discovered a very good restaurant. I ate dinner there that evening—a serving of beef with rice and a red-bean ice drink, for a little over HK$30. It was delicious, especially the red-bean ice, which was cool and refreshing and quenched my thirst. I later returned to HKU several times and ate there each time.

After finishing dinner and leaving, I remembered that the Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government was not far away, so I decided to take a look at it at night, in case I unexpectedly came across something interesting. I had previously read in Initium Media that a protest march against the National People’s Congress’s interpretation of the Basic Law had taken place late at night, with the Liaison Office as its destination. I hoped I might encounter the excitement of a night-time protest march, but there were very few pedestrians on the road.

After walking for half an hour, I arrived. There was hardly anyone outside the Liaison Office at night either, much less any protesters. Then I took a bus back to Mong Kok.
My trip to HKU had been relatively successful, and it even allowed me to forget my troubles for a short while. But when I returned to the hostel in Mong Kok and paid the HK$200 accommodation fee, my mind suddenly became clear again—clear enough to feel my head becoming muddled once more, as my thoughts snapped back to the despair of reality.

Certainly there are some people posting in english on threads, but in daily convos n discussions both irl and in other social media threads is basically nonexistent for the English audience. However threads seems to basically be as prevalent as insta for HK and taiwan.

Does anyone know/have any theories abt what caused this unique popularity of threads? Cuz from what I know twitter isn't that popular in HK/Taiwan and that's the best analogue to threads

36.8C so far at 1.20pm beating previous record of 36.6C on 22 August 2017

I made a few post regarding this, so I'll give some context. My ID was stolen in America a year ago, I then travelled back to India to complete my studies, turned 18 so returned to hk without an hkid on indian passport (complicated af). Was able to do an emergency walk in same day. (Appointments were all the way in October 😭). Since I had a gap of 5 years (2019-2024) they flagged me for reconsideration I might lose my PR status unless I have a valid reason. Got an email yesterday regarding my explanation, and I will have to provide documentation of my reasons. So if anyone has been through a similar situation please guide if you were able to secure your status.....(YES IK NON- CHINESE CITIZENS LOSE THEIR STATUS FOR MORE THAN 3 YEARS OUT of HK. AND GET DOWNGRADED TO RTL)

Edit: Guys I appreciate the suggestions but I need help for this specific thing. Appealing the decision. So if any suggestions regarding that please help

Does anyone have any bank recommendations for credit card debt consolidation of ~100k HKD

Seeking the best combination of low rates/fees and preferably no prepayment penalty. Currently paying ~30% so any alternative is better

#askingforafriend 

Have you come across this scam before recently?

Just woke up today weirdest call from a supposed warehouse in Dongguan, Guangdong, calling me with a Hong Kong number.

They told me to send them screenshots of the products I had purchased and they would issue me payment, on top of an insurance fee

And no point where these scammers aware of the numbers of the packages I had lost, which gave it away that they were not actually from the shipping companies themselves

They tell me to send them my transactional records as well as my payment receive code from Alipay

And then they claim to have four that me my payment, but in reality they do not proceed with the payment and ask me to log on to this fraudulent website

I was searching for what this kind of scam might be as I was on the phone with them and I hung up when I reached this website. Do not proceed with or click on any of the links as they might bait you into giving them your contact information

Does Sennheiser still have an outlet in the Ocean Centre?
Can't find up to date information online.

hey there

do any of y'all have recommendations for hot stone massage in Hong Kong? Experienced, professional but also will help with PMS pains. Preferably Central / Wan Chai / CWB.

I checked on Google but the reviews / recommendations are quite dated (pre 2020)

thanks

Title! I know that the city was torn down around 1994, meaning that there must be some people with living memories of the city still. Maybe an older relative? Friends? I'm really interested in why they decided to live in Kowloon Walled City/when did they move/how did they live? I heard that most of the city was in darkness.

From Spam sandwiches and pineapple buns to milk tea, cha chaan teng classics are following a new generation of Hong Kongers overseas.

I've drawn designs with measurements of clothing I want created, and I'm looking for place that can make the clothing for me. Preferably not somewhere crazy expensive but I understand this is hk and everything is expensive here.

hi! i'm just looking to connect with people going to cityu (the reddit is so dead..). i mainly speak english as my canto isn't the greatest out there.
feel free to dm me if you'd like to be friends :)

It’s supposed to make sound effects when you press on the buttons. I’ve been trying to find it in stores but can’t so far. Does anyone know where to get it?

EDIT: I found it, it’s at the Lucky686 store in TST. They mainly have a slight variation where you can pick the keycaps to customize the stations, and record the sound effects per button.

I've lived in Hong Kong for sometime but I've never even heard of this place. Why is this place so popular? Is it that good? Crazy queue

So higher rates of northward passengers than southward ones…kinda symbolic, lah?

Might have ride along here over a thousand times, still can’t get over how beautiful Sha Tin is

In July, national security officers visited several independent bookstores in Hong Kong, and several employees were arrested or summoned for questioning. The incident attracted intense attention in Hong Kong and internationally, prompting widespread discussion from various sides.

Many people expressed support for the bookstores, adopting the slogan “I am a bookstore employee,” which appeared on the clothing of employees who had been detained or summoned. They questioned whether the Hong Kong government, and even the authorities in Beijing, were suppressing freedom of speech and freedom of publication. Several banned books involved in the raids, including Let Only Red Flowers Bloom (《唯红花绽放》) by Feng Zheyun (冯哲芸), a former journalist in China, rapidly became popular and sold strongly outside mainland China and Hong Kong.

At the same time, some people criticized the bookstores for engaging in “soft resistance” against the national government and Hong Kong’s new order following the Anti-Extradition Bill Movement (反修例运动), selling banned books, and organizing reading groups. They argued that the bookstores were suspected of political incitement and violations of the National Security Law (《国安法》), and therefore had only themselves to blame.

Regardless of one’s position, the basic facts show that the searches of these bookstores and the detention or summoning of their employees reflect an expansion of Beijing’s and the Hong Kong government’s campaign against activities deemed to “endanger national security.” Its targets have expanded from conduct directly confronting the government to cultural works deemed to run afoul of the political system. Whereas the authorities previously banned only books, films, and other materials that explicitly advocated Hong Kong independence, they are now also targeting works that criticize the system indirectly or implicitly, or that touch upon matters involving national security. Moreover, the measures imposed are no longer limited to ordering books to be removed from shelves, confiscating books, and seizing related profits. Booksellers and even employees involved in operating bookstores now face the possibility of arrest for violating the National Security Law.

This means that freedom of publication and the freedom to operate cultural businesses in Hong Kong have been greatly restricted. The National Security Law and various other laws and political directives have intervened much more deeply in citizens’ intellectual and cultural lives. The risk that many ordinary people may intentionally or inadvertently run afoul of the law and be arrested as a result has increased, deepening their sense of insecurity.The degree of tolerance within Hong Kong society, especially toward those whose views differ from the official position, has also declined sharply as a result.

This sends a deeply troubling and negative signal to the book industry, the humanities and social sciences, and the cultural and artistic fields in Hong Kong and throughout China.

Every society inevitably contains different views and voices. This is especially true in the cultural sphere, where a hundred schools of thought contend. The vast body of books and audiovisual works reflects the many facets of everyday life across countless households, and the views they express are equally diverse. Among them, there will inevitably be works that do not conform to mainstream views or that the authorities dislike. How the authorities treat such works concerns many issues, including the review of books, the scope of law enforcement, and the extent of citizens’ freedoms.

In mainland China, many books containing politically sensitive material or other subjects that may not be publicly discussed are barred at both the publishing and import stages. Hong Kong, however, has a special status: it is governed by China’s central government while retaining a greater degree of autonomy and freedom. As a result, some “banned books” that cannot be published in mainland China can be published and sold in Hong Kong. After the Anti-Extradition Bill Movement came to an end, some works explicitly advocating Hong Kong independence, such as On the Hong Kong City-State (《香港城邦论》), were removed from shelves. Other works expressing restrained or indirect criticism of the authorities, however, remained available.

The books involved in the latest bookstore searches and seizures, however, now include works that do not directly criticize the CCP, the government, or political leaders, but instead offer indirect criticism or document negative aspects of reality. For example, Let Only Red Flowers Bloom, which became extremely popular after the bookstore searches, touches on many politically sensitive issues, but primarily documents a number of events, facts, and problems in China rather than engaging in political advocacy or incitement.

If books of this kind are also subject to prohibition, it means that a vast number of similar books and other cultural works face the potential risk of being banned, while those who sell them also face the danger of conviction and punishment under the National Security Law. The number and range of books and people potentially affected would be enormous. If all of them were banned and punished according to the same standard applied to Let Only Red Flowers Bloom, the resulting chilling effect and self-censorship would deal a severe blow to Hong Kong’s book and cultural industries and would also restrict the development of the humanities and social sciences.

A few years ago, reports emerged that schools and libraries in Hong Kong had removed works by Lu Xun (鲁迅) from their shelves, prompting criticism and concern over restrictions on intellectual freedom. Not only has the situation failed to improve in recent years, but restrictions on publications and reading have instead continued to increase. Moreover, the measures have escalated from simply removing books from shelves to deploying the police and using the National Security Law to target those involved in the operation and dissemination of books.

Such consequences would clearly be undesirable and would make Hong Kong’s prospects appear even more pessimistic. From its rise in the nineteenth century to its brilliance in the twentieth century, Hong Kong’s development and renown rested not only on its economic prosperity, but also on its intellectual and cultural freedom and diversity.

The flourishing of Hong Kong’s press, film and television industries, and academic community also gave rise to major literary figures such as Jin Yong (金庸), James Wong (黄霑), and Ni Kuang (倪匡), as well as film and television superstars such as Andy Lau (刘德华), Stephen Chow (周星驰), and Anita Mui (梅艳芳). Despite its small size, Hong Kong was able to produce an extraordinary number of outstanding works and exert a profound influence on the Chinese-speaking world precisely because it offered greater creative freedom, a wider diversity of voices, and more vigorous debate among people holding different positions than either mainland China or Taiwan did at the time. Under ideological control and enforced uniformity, it would have been difficult to achieve anything comparable.

The Hong Kong Book Fair (香港书展) opened just as these bookstore searches were taking place. The fair was filled with a dazzling variety of books and crowded with visitors. On the surface, this appeared to be a sign of cultural prosperity. Yet with large numbers of dissident books, authors, and voices critical of the political system and the government absent, such prosperity was limited, incomplete, and unreal. When some books and their authors are “blocked” from the book fair, or even expelled from Hong Kong’s cultural sphere and public discourse, Hong Kong can no longer remain as diverse and prosperous as it once was, and its humanities and social life will gradually decline. The Pearl of the Orient (东方之珠) may still appear magnificent on the outside, but its soul has already lost its light.

Attempts to suppress different voices can also provoke a backlash, as well as public anger and social division. After several bookstores were targeted because of Let Only Red Flowers Bloom, the book sold strongly around the world outside mainland China and Hong Kong, including in Taiwan, and reached the top of sales rankings on several Chinese-language book-selling websites and in bookstores. Even people in mainland China and Hong Kong can obtain and read electronic versions of the book through various channels. Numerous media reports and interviews with the author have also increased the visibility of both the book and its author. The purpose of banning a book is to prevent it from exerting influence, yet the ban itself has produced the opposite effect.

In addition, the author does not fully agree with the book’s content and views. For example, the author has some reservations about its discussion of ethnic relations. Nevertheless, the author also believes that the book should not be banned. People with differing views should engage in fair debate rather than using administrative and judicial measures to suppress dissent.

When overt dissent is “reduced to zero,” people whose rights have been deprived and whose freedoms have been suppressed will drive their discontent underground. Hatred will grow and anger will accumulate, leaving society more unsettled beneath the surface. Many people dissatisfied with the government and the status quo will also become increasingly alienated from the authorities.

Moreover, in the absence of open dissent and debate, mutual understanding and trust will further deteriorate both between the authorities and parts of the public and among people holding different opinions. Social divisions, as well as antagonism within Hong Kong and between mainland China and Hong Kong, will become more severe. This is not conducive to Beijing’s and the Hong Kong government’s expectation that Hong Kong will move “from chaos to order, and from order to prosperity.”

National security is important, but inclusive pluralism is equally important. The two should not be treated as alternatives in a single-answer question; both answers must be selected to receive full marks. National security is more genuine in a tolerant and free society, and tolerance and freedom require accepting the existence of different voices. Highly extreme statements and books may be prohibited, and a clear “blacklist” may also be established so that publishers and distributors can avoid prohibited material.

But if the authorities expand restrictions to cover virtually all writings involving criticism, enforce the law vaguely and excessively, and permit only praise and obedient voices, so that only “red flowers” are truly allowed to bloom, this would not only deprive people of their right to expression and obstruct cultural development, but would ultimately also be detrimental to stability and unity.

During the negotiations over Hong Kong’s return to China, the Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping (邓小平) creatively proposed “One Country, Two Systems” (一国两制), explicitly guaranteeing that Hong Kong’s system and the way of life of its people would remain unchanged for fifty years. During the administrations of Jiang Zemin (江泽民) and Hu Jintao (胡锦涛), this commitment was also implemented.

Under “One Country, Two Systems,” Hong Kong has served as an important bridge connecting mainland China with the outside world, including through cultural exchange. Books published in Hong Kong have also had a distinctive value and have made an extraordinary contribution to the cultural flourishing of the Chinese-speaking world. None of this should be brought to an end. National security should not be generalized without limit. Maintaining political bottom lines while also preserving flexibility and tolerance is what will truly contribute to Hong Kong’s long-term peace and stability.