Thursday 24 June 2021

In memory of Apple Daily

At the time of writing, the last edition of the Hong Kong tabloid Apple Daily is going on sale. The sun has not risen, but there are already long queues at newspaper stalls across the territory. 

This was a result of a series of assaults from the authorities. Its founder and majority shareholder Jimmy Lai had been charged with foreign collusion under the new “National Security Law” (NSL) last December and has been in jail under remand since. Last week, its editor-in-chief and chief executive were also taken into custody after being charged under the NSL. Its parent company Next Media then announced that it would close the newspaper down the coming Saturday as the authorities have also frozen its assets and accounts, rendering it unable to pay its staff. 

It was not to be. Yesterday morning another opinion writer was arrested. In the afternoon, the management decided to close the newspaper two days early, citing “safety of staff”. 

The Apple Daily has been an interesting creature. Its reporting style is unashamedly that of a tabloid: sharp, funny, and incisive. From celebrity news to culture features, from horseracing tips to international news, it gave readers what they wanted in that genre, in honesty, but also in a way they would like it. 

For its entertainment pages, this meant introducing US-style paparazzi into Hong Kong and Taiwan and pioneering the use of animations in news reporting. Western readers may remember a viral news animation about Tiger Woods - yes, that was Apple Daily's work. It was a quieter time with less to worry about, and readers liked its famously lewd yet witty gossips. 

On the other hand, its culture pages serves a different dish to a different clientele. From an author of a BAFTA- and Cannes-winning screenplay (Farewell My Concubine, Lillian Lee) in its early days, to a prolific lyricist (Albert Leung / Lin Xi), it is hardly unrefined. 

It has had its own fair share of scandals. Making a sensation "scoop" about a woman's suicide by paying the widower (Chan Kin-Hong) to visit a prostitute? Yes, that was Apple Daily in 1998. They lose libel cases, but again so do the pro-government tabloids like the Oriental Daily.

Editorially, it is firmly aligned with the cause of universal suffrage and the pro-democracy camp in Hong Kong. It might be less obvious at the time, but it did say it was founded as a paper that "belongs to Hong Kong" "in defiance of fear" back in 1995. 

Over the last 10 years or so, however, it has morphed into something slightly different. As local newspapers had one by one come under ownership of businessmen with significant interest on the Mainland, it increasingly found itself a lone and proud beacon of dissent. It took on columnists who no longer write elsewhere. 

Readers have started to perceive it differently too. Ten years ago, the Apple Daily was largely a tabloid with a pro-democracy bent. Today, Hong Kong democrats see it as an advocate for their cause, a speaker of truth to power with an endearingly colloquial style, a fixture that reminds them of another way of life before influences from the Mainland encroached. 

Indeed, for some, the perception has started to change very early on. A history teacher of mine once told us that he reads the Apple Daily because it “holds the powerful to account, though they use vulgar words”. 

Last year it started an English version. It was also unashamedly pro-democracy, but that was the whole point: to provide an alternative to Jack Ma's South China Morning Post

For most of my lifetime, the Apple Daily has been part and parcel of Hong Kong’s local life. Of course that does not necessarily mean anything: all sorts of organisations had been integral parts of lives somewhere until, well, they are not. The comings and goings of newspapers should be uneventful in a fair media landscape. Readers and advertisers are free to choose what papers they patronise. But freezing a media company's assets on trumped-up charges so that it has to close? That's thuggishly abhorrent.

I’d always prefer a tabloid that speaks truth to power in short words and colloquial constructions to a broadsheet that verbosely defends the indefensible for the powerful. 

I’d rather have the gutter press than the Pravda. 

And this is why the Apple Daily will be sorely missed. 

Queues for the last Apple Daily during the small hours of 24 June 2021 (Thu). Source: The Stand News

--------

News reports & analyses: 

Thursday 3 June 2021

大嶼山唔只係個島,更加係座山

喺我哋市區人嘅眼光裏面,大嶼山只係一個大島。最近有網友留意到迪士尼明明喺大嶼山,但就有一半喺荃灣區、一半喺離島區,就覺得「有啲奇怪」。其實,如果代入以前啲漁民、農民嘅角度,就會覺得噉樣先至係正常。

大嶼山內部多山,島內交通十分之唔方便,唔可以作為一個經濟整體噉去理解。反而,鳳凰山、大東山就好似八仙嶺分隔上水同大埔咁,將大嶼山上面嘅居民分開。

啱啱睇完前港英新界政務署長許舒(James Hayes)1970年嘅《香港地區 1850-1911》。其中就提及喺1899年嘅時候,大嶼山上面嘅農村、漁村嘅居民,主要會去四個墟市:大澳、長洲、坪洲、同埋元朗(!)。其中三個都唔喺大嶼山上面。

1899年大嶼山嘅鄉村聚落,同埋佢哋關係最密切嘅墟鎮。
跟住許舒嘅《香港地區 1850-1911》表12(頁141)嚟畫。

諗深一層,其實又唔難明嘅。今時今日交通發達,香港境內大部份地方都通咗車路。但係喺以前,行水路往往係方便過行山嘅。試想像吓,你啱啱曬好咗啲鹹魚要去趁墟賣,順便想買隻豬返屋企。你話放啲鹹魚上船撐過去辛苦啲,定係孭住行山辛苦啲?

正因為係咁,大嶼山西面嘅農村、漁村,由北面嘅東涌去到南面嘅塘福,都會去大澳趁墟。

而東面、南面,即係芝麻灣半島、貝澳、梅窩一帶,佢哋嘅主要墟市係長洲、坪洲。其中長洲比較繁盛,向西就遠到石壁鄉嘅居民都會吸引到過嚟。而縱貫大嶼山南北岸嘅東梅古道,亦都吸引咗大蠔灣、白芒村嘅居民去長洲趁墟。而住喺竹篙灣、大白(今日嘅愉景灣)、稔樹灣嘅話,就會去坪洲。

直到今日,長坪兩洲雖然喺新界,但冇「鄉村」,亦都冇原居民代表,法律上係全港唯二嘅「墟鎮(market towns)」,只係得代表居民嘅街坊委員會。而坪洲鄉事委員會,仍然包括大嶼山上面嘅稔樹灣,同埋已經變咗愉景灣嘅大白、二白。

更加有趣嘅,係大嶼山北岸嘅東涌、沙螺灣、大蠔灣,亦都會去元朗趁墟。睇嚟行水路真係可以去到好遠都唔怕。

語言方面,似乎大嶼山大部分嘅村都係雜居嘅。就留意到貝澳十村有十二姓:客家、本地各六。如果計土地業權,更加係客家人多啲。石壁就純係本地人。長洲、大澳作為墟市,更加係講各種民系嘅人都有。可見去邊度趁墟,係山川形便嘅緣故為主,同講咩話關係唔大。

二戰後港英政府為咗行政方便,推動全新界嘅鄉村組成鄉事委員會,就通常係用當時嘅墟市作為中心。出來嘅結果,其實同1899年嘅觀察相差無幾。一條村係屬於「大嶼山南區」定大澳,基本上睇去長洲定係大澳趁墟就知。大蠔灣嘅白芒、牛牯塱、同大蠔新村,就因為東梅古道嘅緣故,繼續同梅窩扯上關係。嗰陣時,梅窩去中環嘅渡輪應該只係啱啱開辦,呢啲村嘅居民買嘢怕且都係去長洲。

大嶼山上面嘅現有鄉村,同埋佢哋所屬嘅鄉事委員會。大澳依家界定為十條「鄉村」,但長洲、坪洲就係冇原居民代表,淨係得街坊代表嘅「墟鎮」。
來源:民政事務總署鄉郊代表選舉入面嘅分界地圖。

至於大嶼山東北大轉、鹿頸嗰啲村,許舒冇記載佢哋去邊度趁墟。但到咗鄉事委員會成立嘅時候,佢哋就劃咗入馬灣。呢個都唔難理解:佢哋去馬灣、荃灣梗係方便過去長、坪兩洲,甚至大澳啦。到咗各區政務處、區議會成立,佢哋就跟住馬灣入咗荃灣區。

許舒嘅《香港地區 1850-1911》

======