the courts, and more for the work -- from the world of politics all at your fingertips. you can also stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and find scheduling information for c-span's tv network and c-span radio, plus a variety of compelling podcasts. c-span now is available on the apple store and google play. downloaded for free today. c-span now, your front row seat to washington anytime, anywhere. ♪ >> there are a lot of places to get political information. but only at c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from, or where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. if it happens here, or here, or here or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span. powered by cable.

♪

>> cap down in shanghai. >> that is from the c-span archives video of the 1997 ceremony marking the handover of hong kong from britain to china. you have just published a book about hong kong.

-- in the last couple of years, china has brought in this national security legislation. and that has really changed all of these things. newspapers have been shut down. civil society organizations have been disbanded. marches and protests have been forbidden. much of that happened because of covid. but all the kind of hings -- things that made hong kong hong kong one by one have been dismantled. particularly the case in politics. where the legislature has been completely remade. democratic politicians have been placed in jail.

47 of them awaiting trial under the national security legislation. after they tried to have polls to decide who should stand an election. so the new legislature system has been named patriots only. it is a top to bottom reshaping of an entire society. >> tell me the story you want readers to know. an indelible city. >> there are so many stories of hong kong. i think not one of the things that i want to get across is that this is a place that used to be a british colony. it is a place with its very own distinct history. it is a place of which there were many stories, not just one top-down story, the kind china likes to tell. hong kong is a complicated place.

it is a place of many different stories and narratives. most importantly, one of the things i wanted to get across is it was handed from one sovereign power, the british, to the chinese, history was always written for it by those sovereign powers. i want to do something different, i wanted to write a history that centers hong kong voices, that includes hong kong people. when i started writing it, i went to see a historian, and we were talking about the history books, and he said the problem with history books are they are no faces of chinese people. when i thought about it, it is so true, even in the handover

ceremony, you heard no hong kong people spoke at the most important moment of their lives. i wanted to go some way in rectifying that. susan: you tell a sweep of hong kong's history in your book. in terms of the current situation, you included an author's note, and in the acknowledgments, you describe writing a book that terrifies you. can you tell me more about the concerns you have in publishing? louisa: it was a hard book to write. one of the reasons was that national security legislation that was imposed on hong kong in june, 2020, and it outlaws sedition, terrorism and collusion with foreign powers. these offenses are not well-defined. they are very broad, vague. people have been arrested for

things like having banners or stickers with popular protest slogans, slogans that millions of people were shouting in 2019. the cost of violating these national security laws is very very high, but nobody really knows what they are. people say they were no red lines in hong kong, it's a red sea, because there are red lines everywhere. and nobody really knows where they are. that made it really hard in writing the book, because i had been doing interviews, since 2014, i have this whole archive of interviews. and although the national security legislation is not supposed to be retroactive, it

had been employed retroactively. so it's hard to know whether or not i should use people's names or not or quote things they said in 2015, years before the legislation was passed, whether that could in some way come back to damage them or be dangerous. even though i had wanted to write a book that centers hong kong voices, i ended up having to remove a lot of those names and those faces i wanted to include, because i just did not know whether it was safe. there was no one who was able to tell me. because there was no precedent for this draconian law. so there were a lot of tricky decisions about what to include and what not to include. for me, that was really hard, because i wanted to include as

many hong kong voices as possible, yet at the same time, did not want to put anyone at risk. susan: you're talking to us from melbourne, australia. when was the last time you were in hong kong? louisa: january, 2020. just before covid and the national security legislation. susan: how many years did you live in hong kong? louisa: my parents moved there when i was a small child, so i grew up there, and i worked as a journalist there, when i was just starting out, and i covered the handover of hong kong as a young journalist. i kept going back. i was a reporter in beijing for the bbc first and then for npr. for 10 years in that capacity.

i also kept going back. so i have had a very long relationship with hong kong and i have seen it as home for my life. all of my life. susan: throughout the book, you write about your struggles with the need to have journalistic impartiality, and also being so closely attached to the story. the description of it is an intensely personal look at hong kong. how did you end up reconciling that tension? between journalism and being involved. louisa: it was a difficult balance. for me. as a journalist, who has been trained in that long bbc tradition of impartiality, neutrality, writing these pieces where the journalist is suspended after the action.

we used to call them stanback pieces. -- stand back pieces. i found it very hard to do that, once the protests broke out in hong kong. one of the reasons i did not want to practice that kind of journalism was that constant need for balance. approaching government officials. i was seeing this every day, in the local press. even though the comments officials were making were often completely false. ? you know? they were assertions, such as calling protesters rioters, when i was on the streets and i knew there had been no riots. comments when they overhauled the electoral system and they put in place these new regulations, saying only patriots could run for election,

and many politicians were arrested under the national security act. government officials were saying that democracy was being improved. i mean, when these statements were constantly being repeated by the local media without any kind of fact-checking or clarification, i felt it was not in the service of accuracy or truth. and i did not want to practice that kind of journalism. where falsehoods were constantly being repeated. the analogy would be now if

every time you write a story on ukraine, every story you quoted a russian government official. that's the kind of treatment that was happening in the local media with hong kong. because it is very much owned by businessmen with interests in mainland china. and i just decided that was not the kind of journalism i wanted to practice. susan: you used the term "patriots," what does that mean in hong kong today? louisa: it depends on who is defining it. china uses the term "patriots" to talk about people who love china, and their view of patriotism is not just loving china, but loving the communist party and supporting it. and so, you know, it's very much shorthand for people loyal to

beijing, in china's view, patriots do not refer to people who are in the pro-democratic cam. -- the pro-democratic camp. those politicians with deep roots in hong kong who run in competitive elections in hong kong, for decades, in china's view, they might not qualify as patriots. even though they have grown up in hong kong and served the people of hong kong through elections. but china, and its new system, it requires that those people who stand for election be vetted by a committee, which is headed by the head of security and national security police.

the police are allowed to decide if people are patriotic or not. it is a national security era in hong kong. national security trumps everything. >> how many people live in hong kong today? >> it's about 7.5 million. >> are there any reliable measures on the population's attitudes towards the current government? luisa -- >> the most reliable measures would have been the last elections that happen that were free and fair. they would've been the district council elections that happen towards the end of 2019 where politicians -- it was before the national security legislation passed and it was in the time

when hong kong was still having a lot of protests, street protests, and it was a really interesting indicator of what public sentiment was. for a long time the government had argued that there was this silent majority that supported the government, that supported beijing's point of view. and then, when this issue was put to the people of hong kong, when they were allowed to vote for whoever they ,

of the previous results, and it showed that, if given a vote at that point in time, population did not support the government. i think now, it wouldn't be possible to have that kind of election because most of those candidates were successful in many had been flown off the strict counsel, dozens were put in prison or are awaiting trial. some have fled, you could have a free and fair election of the same time. susan: nor a reliable pole, public opinion poll. louisa: just to give you an idea of how difficult it is to measure public opinion, the

polling company, which is best known for having decades, the head pollster just fled about two weeks ago. he fled hong kong saying that he had been the subject to so much intimidation, that he was unable to continue in position anymore. bear in mind, this is not a politician, it's someone who does polling. so, if you look at the instances that you can draw from that, and the government doesn't want, necessarily, to know exactly what the people are saying because maybe the people don't agree with it. susan: there were two stories recently in the news, as i was reading your book, that i wanted to get your perspective on.

the first was the election of john lee as hong kong's new leader. louisa: john lee is former security official and his choice of hong kong's new leader is very interesting, and the way is what -- in which he chose it is very significant. it would cause an election, but there was only one candidate. it was an election, it was a selection. the fact that hong kong has a chief executive that has generally been someone with a civil service background, in his case he doesn't have a civil service background, his background is in security forces. he's a former policeman, he rose up through the ranks, and he was the security official in charge of oppressing the protests in 20, so he's an enforcer figure,

he has been chosen for his loyalty, really to do beijing's wishes. and even that kind of -- the details that emerged about him during the run up to his selection were interesting, although local reporters, even those in the probating press were trying to write profiles of him and the one detail that really stuck in my mind was that his former colleague said he wasn't a very perfect person and he used to eat lunch sandwiches at his desk by himself. so, he's not a particularly convivial choice, but he is someone chosen for his loyalty and his ability to do web beijing wanted to do in hong kong. susan cole and the other news

story that caught my attention that i wanted to get your comment on was the arrest of 90-year-old retired catholic cardinal joseph zandon, and three others for their work in the now defunct organization that aided protesters, cardinals and was one of the people you interviewed for your book, what was your reaction to his arrest and what it means? louisa: honestly, this was a very, very shocking moment for any hong kong or because it's widely known in hong kong that regardless of your religious background, he's just known as a very upstanding, very -- figure who has, for decades, stood up for his belief and really stood up for hong kong people. he is widely known as being staunchly pro-democratic. he attended a lot of the marches

and the rallies in 2019, and he's a very popular figure. he's extremely outspoken, i interviewed him for my book, and even back then in 2019 when the protests had first started, he had extremely strong opinions about what it meant and what it meant about hong kong's direction of travel, and he was extremely pessimistic, even a couple of weeks into the protests. and i'm sorry to say that his worst fears have been realized, i think his arrest is a very shocking moment because he's a cardinal, and 90 years old, and he's so very highly respected in the other people were arrested with him our also highly

respected figures, sort of pillars in society. one of them is the former legislator representing the legal sector. she's a lawyer and a constitutional law expert and yet she too has been arrested for being hsd in this -- that was helping the family of people who were being prosecuted for protesting. so, i think it's a real sign for hong kong verse, these arrests, that the gloves are off. that anyone is fair game and that nobody is protected no matter what your status is or how elderly and respected you

might be. i think many hong kong there's -- hong kongers treated as a sign that one of beijing's aim to take a man the society for going after those people who pillar a civil society, like religious leaders. so, it's not yet clear exactly what the chargers will be against them, but even the act of arresting them, interrogating them and releasing them is enough to send chills across all of hong kong. susan: you said china reported on its endgame for hong kong as far back as 2016, and that the planning for it has been underway for decades. what is that endgame? what does it look like? louisa: china's endgame for hong

kong is that hong kong should be just another chinese city, like any other major city like shenzhen. these are all major urban conglomeration along china's southern coast and china would like hong kong to be another city like them. it calls these cities greater bay areas and its endgame is that hong kong is to be folded into that greater bay area. you know, it would like hong kong to be quiet, to be doss out, to be loyal, and not to have any particularly special spaces. susan: hong kong has for centuries been a global trading center emerging east or west. what is it mean for western

businesses that have been in hong kong today that these developments unfold? >> the trading essences in hong kong now are leaving in numbers and there were several different factors that are contributing to that. one is certainly the collapse of the rule of law. in the past, western companies have liked to be being in hong kong because it offered a predictability, it offered a very stable, legal environment with rule of law, that you might not necessarily see, and china. and it's a lack of corruption. i think the national security legislation removes that kind of legal predictability and it heightens the risks. so that's one reason. another reason that western companies are leaving hong kong is that hong kong is following

china's zero covid policy and there were very strict regulations to try to stop the spread of covid. . quarantine in hotels for arrival, quite a long amount of quarantine. in the past, people with covid and -- covid in close contact percent to quarantine and that had been very ciccone and with parents being separated from their children and people having this spend long amounts of time and quarantine camps and all of this is spooking western companies and western businessmen. particularly the fact that there is no exit out of the zero covid policy that's visible. susan: we are talking about

comings and goings, but people who live in hong kong have chinese passports, is that correct? likes people who live in hong kong have an f ar passport, it's a hong kong for special administrative reasons. susan: can people come and go as a risk -- as they wish from hong kong? if one wanted to move elsewhere in the world, could they do that? louisa: it's hard at the moment to say covid restrictions aside, because what covid restrictions have done in hong kong have cut down the number of international flights coming into and leaving hong kong. there was literally no way out. sometimes no light between hong kong on the u.k. at the moment. so, in many ways, the problem is it necessarily even the passport

but it could be problematic. louisa: -- susan: i want to go back in history and understand the 100 years before they had over. you tell us hong kong was -- to the british because of the opioid oars. why did the british wotton outpost there? louisa: the british wanted a trading city. they wanted what would become a great emporium of trade in the east, so they decided that hong kong would suit this purpose. at the time britain's focus was trying to rebalance its trade deficit with china, and to do that through selling opium into china. opium was banned, it was not legal in china, but the british had this tremendous trade in

opium, and they wanted a freeport in order to run that business. so hong kong serve that purpose for them, and the british built it into this international center of finance. susan: in researching your book he went back into the british archives and looked at the documents surrounding the negotiations and ultimately the 99 year lease, what was the thinking between the two parties in granting a lease this sort? louisa: the 99 year lease was for the two territories. three parts of land makeup hong kong. hong kong, which was seated in perpetuity in 1840 and this was seated in the 1860's, and then the new territories, which is a much bigger purse -- portion of land, they were given on a lease to great britain in 1898, and at

the time, china didn't want to cede any more land because it was under pressure from western powers to give portions of land to them as concessions, and it didn't want to do that. he didn't want to lose any more territory. so that was why they wanted a lease. from the british point of view, to be honest, it just seemed like the british were very sloppy with their thinking. the man who was in charge of negotiating the lease, he didn't even have an up-to-date map of hong kong when he was doing his negotiations. a believe that he wasn't even aware that a 99 year lease was -- it was thought that he thought it might be given in perpetuity.

i think the british word really thinking forward, they just assume that china was weak and could be bullied in one-out walk this land back. i don't think the british, where that concerned about hong kong's residents or what would become of them. so, this problem, what would happen to the people of hong kong, that was really kicked down the road for decades and decades. susan: for people of hong kong such as yourself who are older than 25 new life and of the british, what was it like? louisa: live under the british was not, by any means, perfect, the british had decades to introduce democracy to hong kong and they hadn't done that. they feared the loss of control, they thought it might be hard to

get hong kongers to do it they wanted, so they didn't introduce true democracy or the franchise at all until the last possible moment. life under the british was -- there was legal predictability but no democracy. hong kong, at the time, was going very fast and the british were responsible for building these new talents, for providing accommodations and schooling, building up the civil service of the police force, and that kinda measure predictability, so, it was a place which really changed from being somewhere that people

past through on their way to somewhere else, to a place that really became home for generations of people, and that was the big change that happened under the british. susan: you write in your book that the british really didn't pay attention to the impending 1997 date until 1982 under the government, and then ramped up the negotiations within the chinese premier. but what leverage really does the british have legally? louisa: it's a difficult question to answer. the british always believed that they had a very weak hands. they knew that hong kong was to return to china in 1997 and when

they had gone to negotiate over its future, he had actually said to margaret thatcher, we could take hong kong back tomorrow, but we have not done that. so that was a threat. and i think those words were really present in the minds of british governors and british officials. at the forthright of their minds, as they then negotiated hong kong's future, i think that threat, that idea that china could go in at any moment with something that made them believe that they had a very weak hand, and so if you read the documents, i found this really interesting trench of documents,

interviews that we have seen from the hong kongers who have been advisors to the british that it really sat on this library shelf for decades. these were interviews done by a hong kong political scientist called stephen the 1980's and 1990's, and the agreement was, they were to be held for 30 years from the last incident described in them before they were to be released, so by the time they were released, many of the people who had been interviewed had already died and that was what made them so interesting to me because these were people who were not able to speak during their lifetimes because of the act and they were bound to silence. this had really been their only chance to really say what they had thought, and they really unburdened themselves.

the interviews that they gave were so anguish, and they were so disheartened. in the british attitude, and they were so worried about the future. the warnings that it gave her so prissy and, the things, the problems that we see today are problems that they foretold back in the 1980's and 1990's and the british didn't listen then. so, for me, it was a really stunning and very sad discovery to read these documents and find out what had happened behind the scenes. susan: on that note, you talk about the very last british governor that you interviewed him, and it was a really compelling scene that you discussed when you asked him his reaction to what had happened there. what did he say to you? louisa: it was a really

interesting moment. so i interviewed him and 2019, and it was while -- while the protests rat happening in hong kong, he was in melbourne and i had just come back from hong kong, and while i was in hong kong, i had been added protests in i had seen on the walls, by that point there was a lot of anti-china graffiti or graffiti being sprayed all over the city and on the wall, sprays on a subway wall of a subway station i saw someone had spray-painted his words, the words that he had said during the ceremony in 1997. i can actually read them out for you. so, they were the words he had said during the hanover ceremony , now hong kong people are to

run hong kong. that is the promise, and that is the unshakable destiny. so when i saw those words on the subway wall i was struck by how far we had moved from that moment and when i interviewed him, i wanted to ask him about that, i wanted to ask him for his views on those words and you know, all the years that i had watched him i knew just what a talented politician he is, it's quite difficult to get him to freely -- you know, as a politician it's quite hard to get him to really admit to anything or to show emotion sometimes.

and i had a certain amount of time, half an hour with him, and eventually i thought i would ask him about it, so i showed him the photographs on the phone and i said, or i don't know if you can read it, but these are the words that are written on the wall, and i read them out to him and i said how does it make you feel seeing those words? and suddenly, he just stopped talking and until then he had been so fluid and was completely silent and he said bad, bad, bad and he bowed down, so his head was almost on the table, and it was a gesture that i have seen him make at this ceremony in 1997 at a moment that i knew he

was overcome with emotion because he had written about in his book in his autobiography. it was the moment that there was this piece of music that played, and he wrote about how it undid him, and he made exactly the same movement, the same gesture when i interviewed him, and it really recalled that moment for me. susan: you said the chinese promised 50 years of one country, two systems any telus in the book that for the first five years, essentially things were pretty unchanged. but starting in 2003, and i should tell you we have 20 minutes left in our hour together. their protest began, started peaceful and then became bigger and ultimately more violent. walk us through the stages of changes in society and the protests that erupted so people can understand the progression.

louisa: in 2003, it was the really first massive protest. and at that time half a million people took to the streets in the population was about 6 million. it's a significant proportion of the population and at that time those protests were against something that was known as article 23 and it was an attempt by the government to bring in legislation that outlawed sub-session and subversion. and people didn't want it, people were scared of it, people believed that it would undermine the legal system and that many people came out to protest and the government withdrew its proposal. so i think this was a real turning point for hong kong as they saw that if enough people took to the streets, they could influence the government. it was very hard to do through the legislator because the way

the legislator was set up always prioritize pro-government forces. so i think people knew that street protests could change things. over the years, we saw growing street protests, so at first they were relatively small and often about the preservationists issues and if there was a protests when the government tried -- when the government demolished a peer called queens. , their activist that occupied the peer and handcuff themselves to the peer and they lost that fight. there were a number of other small protests about preservationists issues. and then in 2011 there were very big protests about national and moral education so this attempt

by the government to bring in chinese style, almost propaganda like education in the schools, and that time it was schoolchildren who came out, tens of thousands of young people surrounded the government building and surrounded that that not happen. so that again, that proposal was withdrawn and then in 2014, it was the umbrella movement where again, very large numbers of people took to the streets and occupied some of the major streets for 11 weeks asking for more democracy, and that time that was unsuccessful. they got no concessions at all from the government, but there were very large protest, up to 1.2 million people took part, and then, in 2019, everything

erupted, and when the government tried to bring in this anti-extradition bill, and their protest soon turned into pro-democracy protests, and they were huge, they took people out of seven and a half people. susan: from reading your book it was a real tipping point because police began to use tear gas to control the crowds. here is a statistic that is and i proper. he said by the end of 2019, 90% of the people of hong kong experience teargas? >> there was teargas used in areas where 90% of the population lived in it was extraordinary. the stories that you heard, there were people or people's photos that were being teargas as they sat in their living rooms because hong kong is so densely populated that teargas

on the street was just rising and leeching through the window frame. people were being teargas lining up to buy noodles or sandwiches for their lunch on their lunch break. teargas was being used some weekends the police were firing thousands of rounds of teargas. it was just becoming something that was being used almost every weekend on the streets of hong kong. in a way, it violates you and convention on the use of chemical weapons. susan: i want to show a new story about the 2019 protests about people can have their memories refreshed about what the world saw. [video clip] >> in the city streets thousands

clashed with police. versus shields and pathans. through clouds of teargas, they push forward. >> tensions have been rising for the last hour and you could see the protesters have just broken through the barrier that surround the building there, and some have tried to come down from the other end. their aim, to preach parliament, to stop and extradition bill that puts their freedom at risk from china. [end of video clip] susan: who are the protesters or who were they by 2019? louisa: that day, those protesters surrounding the legislator were mainly young

people in their 20's and 30's, some even in their teens. but over time, the people who were protesting in 2019 encompassed all society. 2 million people estimated to turn out the biggest march, and went to many of those marches so young people, all people, well educated people and people with little education, it was a real cross-section of society because so many people felt that their interest in future were threatened by the changes that were proposed. susan: you say that at times protesters became frightening me violent, what your view of this? louisa: it's true that the protesters, although they

started off as peaceful, they became more radical and more violent as time went by. it was an incident where van was set on fire. there was an incident where people -- a couple of journalists were treated in a very violent and frightening fashion by protesters. in there were incidents where the use of molotov cocktails, flaming bows and arrows, these were all coming to you by protesters. so my, and i did not have sympathy for the use of violence by protesters. i was on the streets, i did

witness how booze while the police behavior was, but i also found the behavior of protesters was quite scary as well susan: finish a thought. sorry. louisa: at the time, hong kong streets did not feel at all safe in any way. susan: and you write it culminated in the most terrifying day when police used live ammunition for the first time. you yourself felt endangered that day? louisa: it was the most terrifying day for me, although there were days that followed. but for me that was the most terrifying day because there was a lot of teargas on the streets that day, and it was a day where i was wearing a press vest and a

hammock with press written on it. policeman pulled the gun and stuck it in my face at point lane grange, and i was terrified. i was with a group of reporters and he swiveled the gun in each of our faces, and it was a really terrifying moment, but at that time, the reporters who were on the streets every day, that was probably not a big deal for them because there was so much violence. reporters were being arrested, beaten up, all kinds of things were happening. but for me, it was a moment that was quite terrifying because for me hong kong had always felt like such a safe place. it had always been a place where you can walk on the street, even at night alone, as a woman, and

he never felt in any kind of danger. in there were the certainties that no longer existed, walking on the street in the middle of the day felt terrifying. susan: what shut the protests down? louisa: the protests, there were various reasons why they ended, one big reason was covid. once covid began to pick up pace, there were new regulations which stopped people gathering in groups, and first of more than four and then groups of more than two. if you are standing on the street in a group of three, people could be arrested, so covid was a very big factor in

shutting the protests down. but at the same time there were other bits of legislation that were being used to outlaw protests. people were being arrested for illegal assembly. protests that even had police permission reset only being declared illegal but they had already started and were halfway through. so i think covid was a useful pretext to stop people from protesting, and that process had been underway for several months. susan: we have about six minutes last and many interesting ways to take the story. wanted to get one character, one person because he's a threat throughout your story, and that is a street artist that was nicknamed the king.

briefly, why did he become symbolic for you of hong kong? >> i was fascinated by him because he was such a feature of my childhood. he was this extraordinary character, an elderly man who many people thought had mental health challenges. when i was young people used to say he was completely mad because he didn't wash any smelled really bad, and he was disabled, and he looked quite different, he often was on the streets sort of shirtless. and he believes that the peninsula had been stolen from his family by the british, and he spent decades painting graffiti on the walls of the city, claiming back this land that he thought was his.

and the thing about his calligraphy was that it was really bad. he had only had two years of schooling. his characters were all crooked. they weren't beautiful and balance at all, but they were very distinctive. whenever he painted on the wall, he would choose walls or spaces that belong to the government. use very contextual, so walls, slopes, electricity boxes, post boxes, lampposts, all government property because he was claiming back his own land and the government would send cleaners to watch out -- wash off his words, paint over them, and then he would come back and paint again on the same places. so you know, in away, he changed the cityscape by painting on it, and he became this feature of the city, this communal

collective memory for hong kongers, and he became this iconic figure, poets wrote poems to him, singers saying rap songs and jazz numbers to him, artists had tributes to him and he was in films and he was in advertisements for cleaning products, and he became hong kong's most valuable artist, someone who actually represented hong kong. so he was this iliac conic, surprising figure, and i was fascinated by him because to me, the themes that he was preoccupied would -- were really central to hong kong. themes of dispossession, territory and sovereignty, and yet he had been talking about them decades before other people, so long ago that people

thought he was mad, when i went to interview people about him, they would say things like, maybe he was a shaman. only when you go mad can you see the truth. and maybe he was a prophet. so i was just very fascinated by him as a character. susan: we have just about two minutes left in closing. you titled your book and dello city and you and the book with words of hope that hong kong will see the light again. what are your aspirations for hong kong? louisa: at the moment, it is hard to be optimistic about hong kong's future just because this type of clampdown has been so -- the suppression has been so hard and so fast. but my hopes for hong kong and hong kong's people are hong kong's people are very

resourceful, they are very determined, and like the king, the very principled, even like him, they believe that even if they don't think something will necessarily succeed, if it's a natural principle they will stick to it no matter what, so we have seen very large numbers of hong kongers leaving hong kong and settling overseas. i think the signs of optimism for hong kong are that it has raised the people with such a strong sense of morality and justice, and that cannot be stamped out. these are people who would rather leave a place then have their thoughts be dictated on how to live.

i think that's incredibly powerful thing. timmy, that's a measure of hong kong zindel ability, its people and its belief. susan: she is a journalist and the author of a new book titled indelible cities, the secession in defiance of hong kong. joining us for her home now in melbourne, australia, thank you so much for your time. louisa: thank you so much for having me. ♪ >> all q&a programs are available on our website or as a podcast on our c-span now at. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> chinese leaders xi jinping left chinese mainland for the first time since the beginning of the pandemic. he arrived in hong kong today ahead of the 25th anniversary of

the city's handover from british to chinese rule. the washington post writes the reference to protest in recent years against beijing's encroachment. she says after rain and storm, hong kong has risen from the ashes. she is expected to spend two days in hong kong tomorrow -- mark the july 1 handover. >> since the summer of 2020, roughly 214 public monuments have been taken down across the united states, either through official processes or by force. sunday night on q&a, aaron thompson, professor of art crime at the city university of new york, and also of smashing statutes talks about the history of american monuments and current debates over which ones should be taken down. >> after the death of george floyd, millions of americans marched to protest racial

disparities. to say that black lives matter, and often these rallies focused on monuments as the symbolic meeting point for showing who was honored in america, whose life mattered and whose life did not. >> aaron thompson with her book, smashing statutes sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q&a. you can listen to q&a and all of our podcasts on our c-span now at. >> this week we are showing all the january 6 committee hearings. tonight, the fourth hearing, officials from georgia and arizona described the pressure they felt from president trump to decertify the 2020 presidential election. watch tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span and you can watch on c-span now, our free video app or anytime online at c-span.org.

>> american history tv, saturdays on c-span two, exploring the people and events that tells the american story. at 2:00 p.m. eastern on the presidency, in honor of nancy reagan's birthday, we look back at the first lady's legacy, her years in the white house through photography, staff remembrances and a new postage stamp honoring misses reagan, which was unveiled by first lady joe biden. at 4:00 p.m. eastern we will feature the author, winner of this year's george washington -- he won during a ceremony at mount vernon for his book, washington, the founding father and the question of slavery. exploring the american story, watch american history tv saturday on c-span two and find a full schedule on your program guide, or watch online anytime at c-span.org/history. >> live sunday on in-depth,

emory university professor will be our guest to talk about race in america, voting rights and gun regulation. she's the author of several books, including white rage, one person, novo, and most recently, the second, race and guns in a vaguely unequal america about the history and impact of the second amendment. joining the conversation with your phone calls, facebook comments, texts and tweets, in-depth sunday with carol anderson live at noon eastern on book tv on c-span two. >> president biden is back in washington, d.c. this evening after attending nato meetings in madrid, spain. during a briefing with reporters he talked about the russian invasion of ukraine and abortion rights in the u.s. this is about half an hour.