Skip to main content

Tag: history

Revising Hong Kong’s Past

Last week, the Hong Kong Museum of History reopened its flagship permanent exhibit after more than five years of renovation. Do the math. The museum closed its doors just months after Hong Kong’s National Security Law was enacted on June 30, 2020 – and it has been closed ever since. The revamped exhibit, called “The Hong Kong Story“ in a nod to Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s storytelling formula for what the Chinese Communist Party calls “external propaganda,” displays over 2,800 artifacts spanning six millennia. But it’s the re-framing of the narratives threading the artifacts together that it most worth attention — that is, if you are a media outlet with even an iota of critical spirit.

Hong Kong’s Ming Pao newspaper, published by Malaysia’s Media Chinese International, was the only major outlet in Chinese to touch the story as a matter of journalistic truth-seeking. It ran a point-by-point comparison of the exhibit’s previous and new language. Among the changes noted was a complete erasure of references to the Tiananmen Massacre, which was recast as “political turmoil in the late spring and early summer of 1989.” Gone from the exhibit entirely, the Ming Pao reported, is a previous image that showed one million Hong Kongers taking to the streets in 1989 in support of the demonstrators in China.

Also apparent was the effort to recast the British acquisition of Hong Kong, previously described as “cession” (割讓) — language still widely used even in pro-establishment sources — as “forcible occupation” (強佔). Similarly, the 1967 leftist riots, previously referred to in the exhibit as the “1967 riots” (六七暴動), are now characterized as “Anti-British Resistance” (反英抗暴).

Government-aligned media outlets were notably uncritical. The Ta Kung Pao, published by China’s central government, ran a celebratory feature emphasizing how satisfied visitors are with the reopened exhibit. Sing Tao Daily previewed the new exhibit content with no critical evaluation whatsoever. The most brutally direct response came, unsurprisingly, from Hong Kong exile media outlets. UK-based Green Bean, an outlet run by exiled Hong Kong illustrators, posted a cartoon of a figure on a ladder hanging a new sign over the museum entrance that reads: “Falsification” (篡改).

Playing With Fire

Former Chinese University of Hong Kong assistant professor Simon Shen (沈旭暉), a political scientist who studied at Oxford under Sinologist Rana Mitter and is now a visiting scholar at National Sun Yat-sen University (中山大學) in Taiwan, faces accusations of selling pro-Hong Kong independence materials through his Global Hong Kong Library (國際香港圖書典藏館). 

Political scientist Simon Shen. SOURCE: National Sun Yat-sen University.

Wen Wei Po (文匯報), a paper controlled by China’s central government in Hong Kong, alleged that Shen’s online platform promoted separatist agendas while displaying and selling items from the 2019 protests — disguised (the paper said snidely) as “precious collections” (珍貴藏品).

Pro-Beijing politician Elizabeth Quat Pei-fan (葛珮帆) warned that sharing such content on social media could violate the National Security Law. Barrister Ronny Tong Ka-wah (湯家驊), a non-official member of Hong Kong’s Executive Council, a formal body of advisors to the chief executive, raised the specter of transnational repression, warning that violators anywhere in the world could face police pursuit. At the Bastille Post (巴士的報), columnist Lai Ting Yiu (黎廷瑤) described Shen as “playing with fire.” The Global Hong Kong Library website states it hopes to preserve Hong Kong collections and ensure “the truth will not be revised.” For more on the crucial role of archives in information freedoms, be on the lookout for today’s edition of our companion publication Tian Jian (田間), or read their recent interview with Ian Johnson.