by admin | Mar 25, 2025 | government, news, politics, politics and government, politics and law
Although domestic security law hasn’t been implemented as extensively as anticipated, authorities have been encouraged to reveal greater details regarding its usage.
For Chan Po-ying from the League of Social Democrats, the instant effect of Hong Kong’s localized version of the national security law, which took effect a year ago, hit her like a blow to the stomach.
Following the enactment of the National Security Protection Ordinance in March, she will have to wait an additional two and a quarter years before her husband, known as “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung—a previous legislator—can be released. In a significant sedition case from last November, he was sentenced to serve six years and nine months behind bars.
Chan, who dedicated 50 years to promoting social equity in the city and now serves as the chairwoman of what was formerly considered the radical faction of the pan-democratic movement, believed that Leung might have been released as soon as 2027. This expectation factored in his previous four years in detention along with an additional reduction of up to one-third off his total sentence due to exemplary behavior during incarceration.
Are you looking for insights into the most significant issues and global developments? Find your answers here.
SCMP Knowledge
Our updated platform features handpicked content including explanations, FAQs, analyses, and infographics, all provided by our esteemed team of experts.
Nevertheless, the recent legislation mandates that prisoners found guilty of offenses related to national security should not receive sentence reductions unless the authorities confirm that this step would pose no threat to national security. Certain activists have faced restrictions on early release following the implementation of the updated national security law.
Chan, who is 69 years old, stated, ‘We understand that hoping for an early release would be unwise because it would merely result in greater disillusionment later.’
“What matters to me is that his time in prison could become more meaningful,” she said, speaking about her incarcerated spouse who will turn 69 this Thursday.
Regardless of any new laws, her party remains one of the few opposition groups that continue to organize demonstrations outside government buildings.
On its one-year anniversary this Sunday, the law enacted under Article 23 of the Basic Law has been applied cautiously, according to legal professionals and political figures, who point out the limited number of arrests and convictions. The Basic Law serves as the city’s constitutional document.
However, others argued that the complete effects of the legislation, encompassing 39 offenses, ought to be evaluated gradually and across a wider spectrum. They highlighted what they termed its “discouraging influence” on free expression and political engagement.
Containing seditious speech and ‘absconders’
Based on information from governmental sources acquired by the Post, up until March 1st, law enforcement has detained 320 individuals accused of compromising national security pursuant to all pertinent regulations in the region since 2020, following the implementation of Beijing’s iteration of such legislation.
The data shows 91 people and four companies were charged under the 2020 law, with 76 people convicted.
Five were charged under the new domestic national security law, with three sentenced, according to the government.
The government refused to disclose specific figures on how many people had been arrested under the new ordinance, citing its work in defending national security.
However, an examination conducted by The Post of publicly accessible statements and reports revealed that officials primarily utilized the ordinance—which encompasses charges such as treason, rebellion, incitement to revolt, theft of government intelligence, and foreign meddling—in two main ways: suppressing activities deemed seditious and curtailing backing for individuals who fled after being charged with endangering national safety.
As per official announcements, the 13 publicly reported arrests conducted under the ordinance were exclusively linked to charges of sedition.
Under the new law, it is illegal to commit any act, utter words, print, publish, sell, distribute or display any publication with seditious intention.
The crime carries a penalty of up to seven years in prison, which can extend to a maximum of 10 years if the offense includes collaboration with an “outside entity,” like a foreign government, organization, or individuals acting on their behalf.
The offense formerly had a maximum prison term of three years under Sections 9 and 10 of the colonial-era Crimes Ordinance, which has now been abolished.
Police made their first and largest arrests in May of last year, detaining eight people for allegedly publishing seditious materials linked to the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown, ahead of its anniversary on June 4. The eight included activist Chow Hang-tung, but no public information has been available to determine if they have since been charged.
Based on statements and media reports, five people have been charged with sedition to date. Among them, three admitted guilt and received prison terms of up to 14 months.
displaying
anti-government slogans or
persistently posting
Videos and images urging officials to resign.
In the meantime, the government has utilized its newly acquired authority from the ordinance two times now to enforce punitive actions against 13 opposition figures based abroad. This includes activists Nathan Law Kwun-chung and Ted Hui Chi-fung, both of whom have been declared fugitives.
In addition to revoking the passports of absconders, the government has also banned individuals from providing financial support, renting properties to, or engaging in business collaborations with these persons. Those who violate this prohibition could face up to seven years in prison if convicted.
Even though skepticism exists regarding the impact of these actions, Lau Siu-kai—a consultant for the semi-governmental Beijing-based organization known as the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macau Studies—asserted that such steps might diminish their capabilities since potential supporters would be hesitant to back them.
He contended that these activists, who persisted in campaigning against both Beijing and the Hong Kong authorities, would likely see their influence wane over time if they couldn’t retain their supporters. Despite the rewards on their heads possibly garnering backing from international entities, this alone wouldn’t be enough to sustain them.
The measures could deter those who had yet to be placed on the wanted list but wished to organise activities overseas, he added.
Lau stated that the use of the sedition charge by law enforcement indicated their intention to crack down on forms of “gentle resistance” within the city, noting that there have been neither violent protests nor many demonstrations since 2019.
He stated that the emphasis in preventing activities threatening national security would be on individuals using peaceful methods to promote hostility and disapproval towards the government.
Lau was convinced that over time, the ordinance would be implemented more sparingly as enforcement actions were carried out and the boundaries of sedition were delineated by the judiciary.
“As it aims to be preventative, preemptive, and a deterrent,” he stated.
‘Cautious’ application of the law
Simon Young Ngai-man, a barrister and law professor at the University of Hong Kong, concurred that the legislation has yet to be thoroughly examined after one year since its implementation.
He mentioned that we haven’t witnessed the complete impact of the [ordinance] yet,” adding that this might be for the best.
The ordinance, along with the law imposed from Beijing, has “completed the national security framework,” according to Young, highlighting its robust and “unusually powerful” provisions.
“Put differently, the law seems to be achieving its aim of keeping individuals far from the red lines,” he noted.
Young expressed his desire for greater transparency from the government regarding the application of the law, including details on the frequency of use—or lack thereof—of pre-charge detention powers.
According to the ordinance, when investigating a national security case, the police can prolong the pre-charge detention time for an arrested individual beyond the usual 48 hours by up to another 14 days, provided they obtain authorization from a magistrate.
Secretary for Security Chris Tang Ping-keung had formerly defended the policy, stating that it provided enough time for law enforcement to probe national security offenses while still safeguarding individual liberties.
Young pointed out that comparable national security laws in other regions featured independent oversight committees, offering transparency and details about the implementation of these statutes. This was absent from the city’s own national security regulations.
He suggested that increasing transparency could be achieved if the government revealed more details about the application of the law.
Grenville Cross, who is both a barrister and the city’s ex-director of public prosecutions, stated that the Article 23 legislation has thus far been implemented “with prudence and moderation.”
He observed that the law was invoked infrequently and remarked that every instance was handled with “wise and impartial judgment” by the judicial system.
“The regulations are explicit, and everyone understands their position,” Cross stated. “Should individuals decide to violate these rules, regardless of their reasons, they should anticipate repercussions, as this is a standard aspect of judicial systems across the globe.”
Previously, some international investors expressed reservations regarding the ordinance and its potential impacts before it was enacted last March. Most were especially concerned about the introduction of clauses related to “state secret theft” and “foreign meddling that threatened national security.” Nonetheless, up until now, details concerning these aspects of the legislation have not been made available to the general public.
Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee, who previously served as the security minister and currently leads the crucial decision-making body known as the Executive Council, stated that the recent legislation has minimal effects on society, noting that only a small number of individuals have faced prosecution under it.
“It has had significantly lesser effects on civil society and the business environment compared to US President Trump’s executive orders,” she stated.
Beyond the arrests
However, Thomas Kellogg, who serves as the executive director of the Center for Asian Law at Georgetown University in Washington, suggested that assessing this legislation based merely on the count of arrests and utilized provisions would be insufficient. He contended that its wider ramifications hold greater significance, even though these effects prove more challenging to record or measure accurately.
He stated that the offense of sedition, in particular, has turned into a “major instrument for penalizing political expression,” and he noted that its persistent application continues to harm Hong Kong’s standing within the global community.
“The challenge of setting boundaries around free expression lies in the fact that the government must continuously monitor these limits, lest people believe they can once again utter specific statements and subsequently do just that,” he explained.
This makes it harder for the government to claim to the global community that they are moving past 2019 and 2020.
John Burns, a retired professor from the Department of Politics and Public Administration at the University of Hong Kong, voiced similar worries about the use of the sedition charge. He stated that this offense has been employed to “suppress government criticism, foster self-censorship, and bolster support for the authorities.”
This involves transforming the political climate in Hong Kong… shifting it from an environment that emphasizes engagement, variety, and transparency to one that prioritizes compliance, uniformity, and responsibility.
A representative from the government informed the Post that the ordinance was designed to precisely target actions threatening national security and clearly define the components and consequences of these offenses to tackle, counteract, discourage, and stop such activities.
He stated that it affects merely a very tiny segment of the population without infringing upon the fundamental rights and liberties rightfully held by Hong Kong residents.
The National Security Department established a reporting hotline in November 2020 for citizens to submit tips. As of February 28 of this year, officials noted that over 890,000 pieces of information have been received through this channel.
Apart from arrests, watchers have observed an increasing number of cultural programs showcasing artists who criticize the government getting abruptly canceled throughout the previous year. They attribute this phenomenon to the ordinance instilling fear among individuals about transgressing boundaries.
In last November, the Hong Kong band Kolor along with singer Pong Nan Yik-pong canceled their performances. Previously, both had expressed backing for the anti-government demonstrations of 2019.
Although Kolor chalked up the incident to “unavoidable circumstances,” Nan faced the cancellation of his event venue booking. Subsequently, the former secretary for culture, sports, and tourism Kevin Yeung Yun-hung stated that multiple factors might have led to these cancelations.
Chan remembered that the police officers, who previously just watched from the sidelines without interfering with her group’s activities at the street booths, began documenting her speeches instead. This made her increasingly cautious about choosing her words carefully to prevent any accusations of sedition.
Previously, the League of Social Democrats organized two demonstrations at the West Kowloon Court to show solidarity with their incarcerated members once the nationally secured laws enacted by Beijing were implemented.
However, last May, when the court issued guilty verdicts against 14 out of 16 opposition figures who challenged their subversion accusations in a significant national security trial, she was detained along with four others.
Then, in February, she called off her party’s demonstration over the city’s annual budget blueprint, an annual ritual that had attracted a handful of members outside the government headquarters, citing the “strong pressure” they came under, without giving details.
Chan stated that although she had doubts about her group’s prospects, she was not willing to relinquish her freedom of expression lightly, particularly concerning her opinions on local living conditions, politics, and economics.
There’s no justification for impeding us, provided our actions and statements remain within legal bounds,” she stated. “No entity ought to limit citizens’ freedom of expression.
Additional reporting by Harvey Kong
More Articles from SCMP
Hong Kong’s public estates must put stop to illegal parking
China declares shared naval exercises with Thailand close to a South China Sea harbor.
China takes steps to enhance relations with South Korea, beginning with tourism and K-pop.
Evil lurking in the specifics of the Hutchison-BlackRock Panama port agreement
This article originally appeared on the South China Morning Post (www.scmp.com), the leading news media reporting on China and Asia.
Copyright (c) 2025. South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd. All rights reserved.
by admin | Mar 25, 2025 | activists, human rights, palestinians, politics, protests
On Sunday, anti-war demonstrators assembled at the US consulate in Admiralty to urge Washington to cease obstructing the pro-Palestinian movement during Israel’s U.S.-backed conflict in Gaza.
The organization — HK Anti-war Mobilization — informed HKFP on Sunday that the consulate contacted the police, who then proceeded to search and identify the five activists, cautioning them against potential violations of the national security law.
“Last week, Israel dismantled the ceasefire agreement by initially halting hostage exchanges, followed by cutting off water and power supplies to Gaza. They resumed bombing raids overnight on Tuesday (the 18th), resulting in the brutal deaths of 404 individuals,” stated the organization.
We gather here today to voice our solidarity with the liberation of Palestine and to show support for anti-war advocates around the globe who are facing violence, suppression, and censorship.
See also:
‘It’s mostly women and children’: Hong Kong surgeon speaks of treating wounded Palestinians in Gaza
Gaza’s Health Ministry
said
last week that over 50,000 people had been killed in the Palestinian territory since the latest conflict began in early October 2023. However, The Lancet medical journal has
said
The real number of deaths could be as much as 41 percent greater. A UN report states that most of the confirmed victims were females and kids.
The latest conflict
started
On October 7, 2023, Hamas militants initiated an unexpected assault on Israel, resulting in at least 1,139 fatalities and approximately 250 individuals being taken hostage to Gaza. As a response, Israel declared its intention to dismantle Hamas completely and subsequently conducted extensive bombing raids across the Gaza Strip lasting over one year.
On last Tuesday, the ceasefire that had been effective since January 19 came to an end when Israel launched a new attack on Gaza. The country has called for the liberation of numerous hostages who remain within the conflict-ravaged area.
Outside the U.S. Consulate on Sunday, the protesters carried signs reading: “The West is complicit in Israel’s genocide” and “Scare fascists.”
The declaration continued: “Led by the United States, Western governments have turned a deaf ear to their own people’s concerns and have aided in the genocide of Palestinians, thereby supporting Israel’s racist and colonial objectives.”
Police search
The organization stated they weren’t shocked that law enforcement was summoned on Sunday. They added, “The U.S. administration is curtailing the pro-Palestinian activism as the U.S. backs Israel in carrying out the extermination of Palestinians.”
They said that the police “reminded us not to violate the national security law, not to contain any sedition content in our slogans, and not to cover our face under [the] face-covering regulation,” as they searched and took down the identity card details of the activists.
In response, the US consulate told HKFP on Monday that the five were blocking their driveway and it had to ensure the safety of its staff and facilities.
The demonstrators were positioned at the entrance to the consulate’s vehicle gate, presenting a potential hazard to both their own safety and that of the consulate personnel,” the statement read. “We completely endorse the right of individuals to demonstrate in a peaceful and secure manner. It is not uncommon for protests to take place close to the consulate.
A year ago, US Consul General Gregory May
said
He posted on Facebook that he backed the rights of demonstrators outside the embassy.
“We uphold basic liberties and human rights. Although I politely differ from these guests’ opinions, I completely endorse their right to demonstrate peaceably,” he stated.
On Monday, the police responded via email stating that they had “received a report around 2 pm on March 23 regarding five individuals holding a public gathering outside 26 Garden Road, Central.” When the police arrived, those present were advised to make sure their public event was carried out according to legal requirements.
Mahmoud Khalil detention
The five protesters were additionally urging for the release of student activist Mahmoud Khalil from U.S. custody.
Khalil, who is a long-term resident of the U.S. and serves as the chief mediator for Columbia University’s student protest advocating for Palestine, was arrested by U.S. immigration authorities on March 8 following directives from the State Department to cancel his visa.
“The arbitrary imprisonment of Khalil demonstrated that the U.S. does not concern itself with justice and liberty whatsoever,” stated HK Anti-war Mobilization.
“The U.S. government is intensifying efforts against the pro-Palestinian movement across all areas, as they worry that people might reveal the reality of the genocide,” the organization added.
“Ironically, the legislation used to arrest Khalil was the same one used by the US government in the 1950s to block Holocaust survivors in Eastern Europe from entering the US,” the protest group said.
See also:
Hongkongers show solidarity with Palestine amid Israel-Hamas war, but keep efforts low-key
U.S. President Donald Trump has warned of penalties for students whom he alleges back Hamas or propagate anti-Jewish sentiment. However, detractors argue that Khalil’s detainment represents an unjust assault on freedom of expression.
Last year, the International Court of Justice — which serves as the main judicial organ of the United Nations — determined that Israel’s actions in Gaza might constitute genocide. However, Israel has refuted these allegations.
Last November, the UN-supported International Criminal Court announced arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Defense Chief Yoav Gallant, along with a previous Hamas military leader, on charges related to alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Aid in protecting press freedom and ensure HKFP remains accessible to all readers by
supporting our team
Open the Youtube video
Open the Youtube video
by admin | Mar 25, 2025 | federal government, government, politics, politics and government, politics and law
1999-Constitution
O
On Friday, March 17, 2023, President Muhammadu Buhari approved and enacted 16 of the 35 Constitution Amendment Bills that had been ratified by both the national legislature and more than two-thirds of the state assemblies, adhering to Section 9(2) of the 1999 Constitution.
According to Section 9 (2) of Nigeria’s Constitution, “A law enacted by the National Assembly to amend this Constitution—excluding those covered under Section 8 of this same Constitution—cannot be adopted in either chamber unless at least two-thirds of all the members in that particular chamber support it. Additionally, such a proposed amendment must also receive approval through resolutions from over two-thirds of all state assemblies.”
Among the significant bills approved by the former president under the Fifth Amendment Acts were provisions granting financial autonomy to state legislatures and judiciary bodies; transferring control over railways from the exclusive legislative list to the concurrent one; empowering states to produce, transmit, and distribute electricity within regions serviced by the national grid; mandating that the President and governors must present nominees for ministerial or commissioner positions to the Senate or state legislature for approval within 60 days after assuming their posts; and directing government policies toward upholding the right to food and food security in Nigeria.
The enactment of these groundbreaking laws occurred during a crucial juncture in Nigerian history. In recent times, demands for power decentralization—nay, genuine federalism—had reached such high levels that they were impossible to overlook. It’s somewhat perplexing how the president’s approval of these pivotal pieces of legislation largely escaped notice among most Nigerians, potentially marking yet another misstep by the previous government. This occurrence coincided with persistent long lines at gas stations and ATMs across commercial banks due to fuel shortages and severe cash deficits. Adding insult to injury, this presidential endorsement happened just before gubernatorial and state house assembly elections, when the country was engrossed in what felt like another critical political showdown.
Similar to other nationalist organizations in Nigeria, this newspaper seems to have voiced its concerns repeatedly about the necessity for power decentralization and a return to the comprehensive federal system of the First Republic. In several editorials, we previously stated in part:
The British government did not believe that a nation encompassing extensive territories and comprising various ethnic groups with distinct histories, tongues, and customs could sustain governance through a central authority indefinitely. Hence, when the colonial Nigerian governor, Sir Arthur Richards, introduced the concept of federalism prior to announcing the Richards Constitution in 1946, he expressed this notion rather indirectly: ‘It would be necessary to establish a political framework … where these varied components can advance at different paces harmoniously and seamlessly toward greater integration economically, socially, and politically without compromising the core values and aspirations embedded in their differing lifestyles.’
The federal structure passed down to Nigeria through the Lyttleton Constitution of 1954 and the Independence Constitution of 1960 represented a balance struck between the divisive and unifying forces present across various Nigerian regions. In 1954, esteemed leaders such as Nnamdi Azikiwe, Obafemi Awolowo, and Ahmadu Bello opted for a comprehensive federated system as the foundation of their national identity.
Certainly, the move initiated by General Aguiyi Ironsi’s military government through Decree 34 of 1966—commonly referred to as the ‘Unification Edict’—to discard the heritage of federalism sparked violent uprisings in the Northern region. This series of incidents eventually resulted in a protracted and expensive three-year-long civil conflict.
Successive military regimes gradually dismantled the federal system. The current unitary framework masquerading as federalism, wherein everything ultimately leads back to Abuja, cannot endure. This paradoxical situation—where an increase in revenue from crude oil sales correlates with greater poverty among the populace—is largely due to our abandonment of the federalist principles established by Nigeria’s founders. These foundational tenets were based on fiscal federalism, ensuring that every region or state benefited directly from resources they generated. In fact, substantial progress occurred across these regions during those times when genuine federalism prevailed.
Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc.
Syndigate.info
).
by admin | Mar 25, 2025 | diplomacy and diplomats, foreign policy, international relations, military, politics
The event sparked online outrage in Japan, leading to calls for more stringent measures against China’s ‘authoritarian breaches of international law’.
Beijing has been accused of “two-faced diplomacy” after pledging greater dialogue and cooperation during high-level talks in Tokyo on Saturday, only for three Chinese coastguard vessels to enter waters around Japanese-controlled islands the next day, pursuing a Japanese fishing boat.
Japan
Japan’s Foreign Minister Takeshi Iwaya expressed optimism after the trilateral meeting with his Chinese and South Korean counterparts on Saturday. He characterized the talks as “an open exchange of opinions” and stated that the three countries agreed to “foster forward-looking collaboration.”
Chinese Foreign Minister
Wang Yi
seemed to concur, stating in a release that improved dialogue and teamwork could assist the trio of countries in “collectively combating threats” and boosting their reciprocal comprehension.
Contemplating the worldwide issues that had drawn Japan, China, and
South Korea
To “a pivotal moment in history,” Iwaya stressed the importance of bridging divides on Saturday. He stated, “Now more than ever, it is crucial to strive to transcend division and conflict via dialogue and collaboration.”
But the goodwill generated by these statements quickly began to evaporate when, less than 24 hours later, Chinese coastguard vessels entered waters near the
Diaoyu Islands
. The islands, administered by Japan as the Senkakus but claimed by China, have long been a flashpoint in the region.
Experts noted that the coast guard’s behavior contradicted the cooperative ethos promoted during negotiations and reflected China’s diplomatic style—presenting itself as collaborative externally while reinforcing territorial assertions in disputed regions.
Many individuals express pessimism following China’s statements and ensuing activities; however, few are truly taken aback,” noted Ryo Hinata-Yamaguchi, an associate professor at Tokyo International University’s Institute for International Strategy, in conversation with This Week in Asia. “Those who find themselves shocked by these developments lack perceptiveness.
Hinata-Yamaguchi described Beijing’s strategy as “showing a pleasant facade” publicly while aggressively reinforcing its territorial assertions. He explained, “Although they claim benign intent in diplomatic circles, their deeds convey a different message.”
‘Sink ships, arrest trespassers’
The events over the weekend sparked significant anger online in Japan, where people were not just upset about China’s behavior but also criticized their own government for what they saw as inadequate response. In comments on Okinawa’s Yaeyama Daily News website, one user condemned Beijing’s approach, calling it “duplicitous diplomacy.”
The commenter proceeded to assert that the Japanese government was being “duped” and cautioned that Japan might relinquish control over the contested islands if it persisted in trusting China.
“One cannot condone China’s oppressive breaches of international law,” stated an online remark. Other comments urged Tokyo to take more stringent actions, with some users advocating for legal amendments allowing Japan to “submerge vessels, detain intruders, and prosecute them in courts.”
“The Japanese government just gives warnings without taking action, allowing China to act as they please,” the commentator noted.
Toshimitsu Shigemura, a professor of political science and international relations at Waseda University, noted that there was significant distrust toward Beijing within the Japanese government. He explained, “Their statements often contradict their actions.” This sentiment was further illustrated when, on the very day that the foreign minister expressed his desire for collaboration to maintain regional stability, the Chinese coast guard entered Japanese territorial waters and intimidated a fishing vessel.
We can’t rely on China to keep its diplomatic commitments.
Toshimitsu Shigemura, a Japanese professor specializing in politics
“We can’t rely on China to keep its diplomatic commitments,” Shigemura stated, suggesting that this indicates possible tensions within the Chinese administration.
He suggested that the defense ministry might have feared the foreign minister could travel to Tokyo and reach an agreement with Japan that would undermine China’s territorial assertions over those islands. However, by dispatching coast guard vessels into Japanese maritime areas concurrently with discussions between the two counterparts, they are essentially conveying the stance held by the defense ministry.
In recent years, Chinese coast guard ships have been increasingly venturing into Japanese territorial waters more often, a trend that has become particularly noticeable over the last ten years.
A remarkable 353 days of operation were logged.
In the contiguous zones surrounding the islands earlier this year. Experts think these moves are intended to challenge Japan’s authority over the contested area.
Shigemura cautioned that Beijing might intensify the pressure even more, which would leave Japan few choices if a Japanese fishing vessel were to be forcefully halted or seized by China’s maritime police.
In a dire scenario like that, Tokyo has limited options,” he stated. “Force isn’t an option for them, so their main leverage would be threatening to withhold support. Under these circumstances, I anticipate Tokyo might propose resolving the issue via talks and discussions; however, China could interpret this stance as a sign of weakness.
“I anticipate that China will continue exerting pressure around the islands since their ultimate aim is to attempt gaining control over the entire archipelago,” Shigemura noted.
More Articles from SCMP
Hong Kong’s Coleman Wong’s historic run at the Miami Open concludes with a three-set defeat against Adam Walton.
Churchome is the preferred place of worship for Justin Bieber. Previously associated with the contentious Hillsong network, this connection could potentially create a rift between the ‘Baby’ singer and his spouse, Hailey Bieber.
China declares shared navy exercises with Thailand close to a South China Sea harbor.
World Cup victor praises progress in women’s rugby, prior to captaining Kiwis at Tradition HKFC 10s
The article initially appeared on the South ChinaMorning Post (www.scmp.com), which is the premier source for news coverage of China andAsia.
Copyright © 2025. South ChinaMorning Post Publishers Ltd. All rights reserved.
