History, it is said, does not repeat itself, but sometimes it rhymes. This may explain the sense of déjà vu that crept over me when I read about the case of Mr Raymond Wong – a 55-year-old construction worker, not the former newsman of the same name – who appeared at the West Kowloon Magistrates Court a couple of weeks ago.

The charge against Mr Wong was that he had on two occasions thrown home-produced leaflets, or in legal language “paper sheets written with statements,” from the vicinity of his 12th-floor public housing flat into the public area of the estate.

The first time, many of them were picked up by an irate district councillor, on the second by a staff member of the estate’s management. Quite how this led to Mr Wong was not explained in court but police eventually discovered his fingerprints on two of the offending items.

Mr Wong was then charged with violating the local national security law, on the grounds that the words on the leaflets were seditious. The first batch called for action against corrupt police people, which I suppose is automatically seditious because it implies that there are corrupt police people, which – of course – is not true.

The second batch of leaflets included the phrase “liberate Hong Kong; do not vote.” Curiously Mr Wong was not charged with discouraging voters, though that is an offence. Worse, we may suppose, was the fatal phrase “liberate Hong Kong,” when – as we all know – the law presumes that Hong Kong is already as liberated as it wishes to be.

Mr Wong sensibly pleaded guilty and will be sentenced later next week.

Meanwhile, I was haunted by the thought that scattering subversive leaflets into public places had come up somewhere before. And after some searching I found it in Geert Mak’s book, “In Europe.” Mr Mak was assigned by the Dutch newspaper he worked for to spend a year touring Europe while also touring the continent’s 20th century history. The resulting pieces were published as they were written in the newspaper, and assembled into the book, which is excellent though now a bit dated, afterwards.

So, in due course, Mr Mak reached Munich, a city with a complete set of capital city kit because it used to be the home of the Kings of Bavaria. One of them lent his name to the local university, the Ludwig-Maximilian Universität. Apparently this is a rather bombastic piece of architecture.

Let me now hand the microphone to Mr Mak:

“Here at the university is where it all converges: the pompous stairways, the pseudo-Roman statues beside them (in reality, two Bavarian kings in costume), the stupendous dome covering the hall, but also the wispy innocent desperate little pamphlets that the students Hans and Sophie Scholl let flutter down from the galleries here on 18 February 1943 ‘In the name of Germany’s young people we demand restitution by Adolf Hitler’s state of our personal freedom …’. They had spread tracts and left behind graffiti on earlier occasions as well: ‘Freedom’, ‘Down with Hitler.’ That was all the White Rose did. This time, though, they were caught by the caretaker and turned over to the Gestapo. Four days later they were beheaded.”

Now, nothing like that could happen here. We do not conclude national security cases in four days. We take four years, which may or may not be an improvement but is certainly different. We do not do capital punishment.

We do not have to worry about our personal freedom, at least as long as we refrain from daring stuff like appearing in the vicinity of Victoria Park with a piece of red string or an inflated question mark.

Still, it should not be a matter of rejoicing that we have joined the club of countries where the channels of public communication have been so choked by fear and restrictions that citizens who wish to express their views are reduced to scattering anonymous leaflets.

Our government seems to have inherited the thin skin of our notoriously sensitive police force. Now even legislators – carefully vetted patriots to a man or woman – are complaining that any comment on government policy which falls short of a rousing endorsement is branded as dishonesty or worse by official spokespersons.

No doubt government policies are usually well chosen and efficiently implemented. Still, our leaders should perhaps take a word of advice from Oliver Cromwell, who famously wrote to one set of obstinate opponents: “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.”

HKFP is an impartial platform & does not necessarily share the views of opinion writers or advertisers. HKFP presents a diversity of views & regularly invites figures across the political spectrum to write for us. Press freedom is guaranteed under the Basic Law, security law, Bill of Rights and Chinese constitution. Opinion pieces aim to constructively point out errors or defects in the government, law or policies, or aim to suggest ideas or alterations via legal means without an intention of hatred, discontent or hostility against the authorities or other communities.

For the fourth consecutive year, a patriotic carnival is being held in Hong Kong’s Victoria Park on the anniversary of the Tiananmen crackdown, the former site of a traditional commemorative candlelit vigil.

The fourth Hometown Market Carnival – jointly organised by Hong Kong’s 30 provincial hometown associations – opened on Wednesday for a five-day run at Victoria Park in Causeway Bay, state-controlled Wen Wei Po reported.

The carnival features 370 booths showcasing Chinese specialities and performances, though it requires visitors to undergo security checks before entering the venue.

Thursday marks the 37th anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen crackdown.

The Tiananmen crackdown occurred on June 4, 1989, ending months of student-led demonstrations in China. It is estimated that hundreds, perhaps thousands, died when the People’s Liberation Army cracked down on protesters in Beijing.

Before the enactment of the Beijing-imposed national security law, a large-scale candlelit vigil was hosted at Victoria Park every year on the evening of June 4. Members of Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement would remember the dead, as well as call for the democratisation of China and justice for the victims.

On Wednesday, the eve of the 37th anniversary, HKFP saw police surround two performance artists, who attempted to stage subtle performances in Causeway Bay near to the park.

Meanwhile, on the same day, Hong Kong’s officials and lawmakers visited Victoria Park to endorse the patriotic event.

Chief Secretary for Administration Eric Chan appeared at the opening ceremony of the carnival. The No. 2 official said that the event boosted “love for hometowns,” as well as local consumption, Orange News reported.

Starry Lee, president of the Legislative Council (LegCo), led over 50 lawmakers to the carnival on Wednesday afternoon. On her Facebook page, Lee praised the event for not only showcasing Chinese specialities, but also boosting the local economy and enhancing exchanges between Hong Kong and mainland China.

However, some exhibitors cited hot weather when complaining that foot traffic at the carnival was down by 30 per cent compared to last year, HK01 reported.

In June 2020, Hong Kong police banned the Tiananmen vigil gathering at Victoria Park for the first time in 30 years, citing Covid-19 restrictions.

The force imposed the same ban in 2021, nearly a year after the national security law came into effect.

In 2023, a group of 26 hometown associations booked Victoria Park to host the patriotic carnival on the anniversary of the Tiananmen crackdown for the first time.

The Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, which organised the vigils, disbanded in September 2021 after several of its members were arrested.

A Hong Kong court is now hearing a landmark trial of the Alliance and two vigil leaders, Chow Hang-tung and  Lee Cheuk-yan. They are accused of “inciting subversion” under the national security law, an offence that carries a maximum penalty of 10 years behind bars. Another vigil leader – Albert Ho – pleaded guilty when the trial opened in January.