Chow Hang-tung's "April 26 Statement on Banned Books and the Chief Executive Certificate"
Why the Hong Kong political prisoner decided not to proceed with her application for judicial review of prison authorities preventing her from receiving four books
The following post by Hong Kong political prisoner Chow Hang-tung appeared on her Birdy - Hang Tung 鄒幸彤 Patreon account on April 26 in both Chinese and English. I frequently post English translations of statements by persecuted pro-democracy figures in Hong Kong, with the intention of giving them exposure beyond the world of those who read Chinese. In this case, there’s no need, as Hang-tung—who studied at Cambridge University, is a lawyer, and has excellent English—has already done the translation. Rather, here I just want to amplify it and provide some context and commentary.
The Communist Party and Hong Kong government do their best to stifle pro-democracy voices, including sending them to prison, as in the case of Hang-tung. In fact, she is one of the few pro-democracy figures we do hear from occasionally—the regime has been quite successful at enforcing silence. So whenever a voice does emerge, it is precious and we should listen to it.
Even in the case of Hang-tung, she has been less outspoken recently, perhaps due to the arrest of her and seven others for “sedition” last year. Starting on April 30, 2024—exactly a year ago, daily posts from Hang-tung starting appearing on a Facebook account associated with her, and they continued up to May 27. All of the posts had one thing in common: they were about June 4. This looked quite brazen: since the crackdown began in Hong Kong, there have been few matters more “sensitive” (read: prohibited, censored) than the 1989 mass protests in China, the Tiananmen Massacre, and the commemoration of those events in Hong Kong. In fact, Hang-tung is in prison awaiting trial on “national security” charges of “inciting subversion” precisely for her leadership in commemorating the Tiananmen Massacre, something that used to be entirely legal and normal prior to 2020. And yet in spite of that, here she was reminding everyone on a daily basis of June 4.
The content of her posts was in general quite anodyne, dwelling on how Hong Kongers used to commemorate June 4 in the past and various other aspects of the anniversary, but the regime obviously regarded the very fact that she was drawing attention to a date that everyone in Hong Kong remembers as a provocation. On May 28, it began arresting people for the posts. In all, from May 28 to June 3, it arrested eight people for “sedition,” including Hang-tung herself, who was of course already in prison, as well as her mother and uncle and others allegedly associated with running her social media account. The arrests were typical in two respects: It is a tactic of the regime in Hong Kong to arrest people in the lead-up to a “sensitive” date like June 4, with the intent of intimidating others and dissuading them from taking action themselves. None of the eight have actually been prosecuted for sedition. But it was also undoubtedly an attempt to silence Hang-tung and to warn any other pro-democracy leaders against speaking out. One of the key ways the regime does that these days is to show the outspoken person that not only they themselves but also their relatives, loved ones and associates will be made to pay for their words.
Unsurprisingly, since then, we haven’t heard from Hang-tung very often. The only other substantial public statement she has made was in January in relation to Court of Final Appeal’s hearing of the case brought by her and two other former standing committee members of Hong Kong Alliance. (You can find a translation of that here.)
So Hang-tung posting one of her few substantial messages in the past year around the anniversary of her June 4 posts last year seems almost like she’s trolling the government. True, it’s not June 4 she’s talking about this time, but it is about a dispute with the government on a matter that may strike many of us as somewhat arcane and relatively insignificant but the very point of Hang-tung’s post is to explain how this small matter has wider relevance.
As her title suggests, the post has to do with two issues in particular: book censorship and how the national security law effectively places certain government decisions and officials entirely above the law.
But before I get to that, some background: Hang-tung is a lawyer. She has been detained since September 2021.
Part of that time has been sent serving sentences for public assembly offenses she’s been convicted of (having to do with her attempts to commemorate June 4 in 2020 and 2021—all public June 4 commemorations have been banned since 2020)—and one other conviction under the national security law for her refusal to share information about Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China—the group she headed and that organized the June 4 candlelight vigil every year in Hong Kong from 1990 to 2019.
But most of that time in prison has been spent on remand awaiting trial for “inciting subversion” along with her two co-defendants, Lee Cheuk-yan and Albert Ho, fellow leaders of Hong Kong Alliance.
While in prison, she has frequently attempted to bring legal actions against the government. For her, as a lawyer, this is a primary means of fighting for justice, or, to use a word that’s almost become a red flag to the regime in recent years, of resistance.
She applied for bail a record-breaking 14 times—no one else remanded pending trial has applied for bail so many times. She was denied every time.
She sought to participate in the case of the Hong Kong government seeking an injunction banning the protest anthem, “Glory to Hong Kong,” but the panel of judges refused to accept her as an “objective respondent,” saying she had “no standing” as she hadn’t done any of the things that would be banned under the injunction, an absurd statement since virtually everyone in Hong Kong has sung the song and/or seen videos of it.
She has made an application for judicial review of prison policies that permit male prisoners to wear shorts in the hot summer months but forbid female prisoners from doing so. Again, in the context of the massive repression Hong Kong is undergoing, this may seem a small matter, but from Hang-tung’s point of view, one must fight injustice where one finds it, including right in front of herself there in prison.
Hang-tung has repeatedly been placed in solitary confinement to punish her for various actions which the Correctional Services Department—the Hong Kong prison authority—views as infringements of prison rules. The last we heard about this is when it was reported on December 18, 2023 that Chow Hang-tung had just served 18 days in solitary confinement and had between June and December been put in solitary confinement a total of nine times. (Typical of Hong Kong these days, information can disappear as fast as it appears: this information was originally posted on the Chow Hang Tung Facebook page, but the post doesn’t exist anymore. Knowing this is potentially the way of all information in Hong Kong these days, I copied the original post, which can be found in the footnote below.1) Anyone who knows Hang-tung knows she’s a very polite, proper and thoughtful person who doesn’t act rashly, so it’s clear that she’s being punished for acts she’s committed as a matter of principle.
Her most recent post is about another action she has taken as a matter of principle—protesting against being denied books brought to her in prison by a visitor. The post is suffused with a tone of regret because she feels as if she has given up on that matter of principle, although she believes she had no other choice.
The case began when Hang-tung filed an application in 2024 for judicial review of the decision by prison authorities to bar her from receiving four books her mother wished to deliver. Hang-tung lists the books in her message below, but it might be hard for most readers to guage their significance.
One is a big fat novel by the renowned Chinese writer, Yu Hua. It’s hard to know why this book was refused her. It’s set against the backdrop of the transition from the Cultural Revolution to the reform era in China, which on the surface might appear as a potentially “sensitive” topic (in the sense that almost anything dealing with history under the Communist Party is potentially “sensitive”) but it was published in China and was a huge hit there. I suspect it was withheld simply because Hang-tung’s mother delivered it together with the others.
Of the others, two are memoirs, one by the Reverend Chu Yiu-ming who participated in Operation Yellowbird smuggling Chinese protesters out of China after the Tiananmen Massacre, was one of the triumvirate of leaders of Occupy Central with Love and Peace during the Umbrella Movement in 2014, and is currently living in exile in Taiwan, from where his memoir was published with some pages blank for fear that, in the new authoritarian Hong Kong, what he had to tell could endanger himself or others . It has no Hong Kong publisher and it’s hard to imagine any Hong Kong publisher having the courage to publish it under current political conditions.
The other memoir is by Szeto Wah, one of the founders of Hong Kong Alliance, now deceased. As a leader of Hong Kong Alliance, Hang-tung was an inheritor of his legacy. The book was originally published in Hong Kong, as were other books by Szeto Wah. Szeto Wah was actually a Chinese patriot whose life was steeped in a rich appreciation of Chinese culture but he strongly supported the protests of 1989 and denounced the Tiananmen Massacre.
The last book, The People Will Not Forget, was put out by the Hong Kong Journalists Association. It’s a compilation of coverage of June 4 by Hong Kong reporters. HKJA is one of the few independent civil society organizations that’s decided to keep going in Hong Kong amid the systematic crackdown on independent civil society, and it’s been relentlessly persecuted as a result.
It’s not hard to see why, in this new era of political censorship, prison authorities refused to deliver those last three books to Hang-tung. In fact, according to Hang-tung in her application for judicial review, the CSD did give a verbal reason for refusing the books, something to the effect of the books “containing biased descriptions of social events, which may arouse a sense of resistance to governance and pose a threat to the security and order of the institution and are not conducive to rehabilitation.”
Here, it should be noted that Hang-tung’s actually the second Hong Kong political prisoner to make an issue of being denied books. Owen Chow was the first. On December 5, 2023, he filed an application for judicial review of CSD’s decision to deny him a book that contained a reproduction of Botticelli’s famous painting, “The Birth of Venus.” When his friend who was tryiung to deliver it received the book back from CSD, on the page in question was a post-it note with a prison guard’s writing, “Nude! Reject!” (裸露！退！).
While his application for judicial review had to do only with the denial of delivery of this particular book, Owen said he had been denied other books as well, including books about press self-censorship in Hong Kong; activism; Taiwan’s Sunflower Movement; Hong Kong’s Umbrella Movement and 2019 mass protests; changes in Hong Kong society (the book had a yellow umbrella on the cover—a symbol of the Umbrella Movement); and US academic David Shambaugh’s China’s Future. But those books weren’t included in his judicial review application because, he said, at least it had been explained to him why the prison stopped their delivery (the reasons were similar to those given to Chow Hang-tung—see two paragraphs above).
Owen’s application for judicial review was filed two months after he was arrested on October 26, 2023 along with two of his lawyers who were visiting him. They were accused of smuggling a letter out of prison. The letter was a formal complaint Owen had written to the ombudsman regarding being denied the book. This was after he’d attempted to resolve the matter with the prison authorities. Eventually, Owen and one of his lawyers were prosecuted and convicted on July 29, 2024 for “carrying an unauthorised item out of prison.” On August 14, they were sentenced to three days in prison.
Since December 2023, nothing has been heard of Owen’s application for judicial review. Perhaps it has been dropped; perhaps it is still awaiting its day in court.
In Chow Hang-tung’s April 26 Statement, apart from the matter of banned books, there is also the fact that the national security laws grant officials with authority that effectively places them above the law.
This is where we get the the regretful if not apologetic tone of Hang-tung’s message. She says she dropped her case because the Chief Executive had issued a “Chief Executive Certificate” on November 26, 2024 certifying that “allowing an inmate to access any of those books would implicate national security.” Hang-tung is surprised that the CE John Lee took the time to read through the books in order to reach that conclusion, but she is also dismayed that according to the national security law, a national security certificate issued by the CE is binding on the courts. In other words, it would have been in vain for Hang-tung to persist with her application: it was doomed to fail, as the judge would have to conclude that the CE had already ruled on the matter, and there is no way of appealing his decision. Hang-tung was her own lawyer in the case, so would not have had to pay her lawyer, but if she had followed through and lost a case she was doomed to lose, she risked being compelled by the court to pay the government’s legal costs which would be very steep indeed. Thus, she had no other recourse.
It’s astounding that the CE would actually intervene in such a relatively small matter as this, but that tells you something about what Hong Kong is like in this new era of repression.
I sometimes find Chow Hang-tung’s willingness to engage with the judicial system heart-breaking, as I myself have no faith in rule of law in Hong Kong—the system is rigged, and the judges are subordinate to their political rulers. Chow Hang-tung does so because she is a lawyer and it is one of the few means at her disposal as a political prisoner to resist injustice. It has also afforded her the opportunity to speak out on numerous occasions. She has also provided the Hong Kong people with a vocal and prominent figure to cheer for in these dark times. And she has occasionally won, as recently when Hong Kong’s top court, Court of Final Appeal, overturned the conviction of Hang-tung and two fellow former standing committee members of Hong Kong Alliance for their refusal to turn over information about the Alliance to the police under the national security law. I am pessimistic about the outcome of her upcoming trial, the big one, but I believe Hang-tung will fight with everything she’s got, in the process producing something worth remembering, and for that, I love her. I think that is a feeling shared by many Hong Kongers.
For a previous post of mine about Hang-tung that also covers some of her previous writings, see “I will not help you spread fear” from December 2021.
This is a piece I wrote comparing Hang-tung, a political prisoner in Hong Kong, with Alaa Abd El-Fattah, Egypt’s most famous political prisoner. It’s about the feeling or realization that you have been defeated and yet you must keep going.
This, “Why the truth’s still worth fighting for in Hong Kong,” is Hang-tung’s statement posted on social media before the Court of Final Appeal in January this year heard the appeal of herself and two other Hong Kong Alliance standing committee members of their conviction for their refusal to turn over information about the Alliance to the national security police. Unexpectedly, they won and their convictions were overturned, though they had already served their sentences.
For a comprehensive view of book censorship in Hong Kong, see here.
4.26禁書論 之 「特首證明書」（The April 26 Statement on Banned Books and the Chief Executive Certificate）
by Chow Hang-tung
April 26, 2025
此文章以中文版本為準，英文翻譯在最後
Chinese original – please scroll down for the English translation
4.26禁書論之「特首證明書」
四月快結束了，五月的陽光將會照耀大地。在四、五月交替之際，要向大家交待一件事（不是1989年人民日報的426社論，而是2025年我的禁書論）：
2025年愚人節這天，原本是要審理有關懲教署拒絕我接收四本書籍（《人民不會忘記》、《弟弟》、《大江東去：司徒華回憶錄》、《敲鐘者言：朱耀明牧師回憶錄》）提起的司法覆核的。可大家或者也留意到……審訊取消了，而且原因在我。
因為很現實的考慮，我決定撤銷這次訴訟。但這次訴訟畢竟是牽涉公權力「禁書」權限和準則的公共問題，不是我個人的私人糾紛。因此有必要和大家交代一下，這個決定的前因後果。
在我們於去年7月30日向法院提起申請之後，李家超於11月26日發出了一張「行政長官證明書」，稱根據《國安條例》第115條，並在考慮過該四本書的內容，監獄的特殊環境，懲教署署長的評管等等之後，他就此「證明」讓在囚者接收這四本書的任何一本均會牽涉「國家安全」。
眾所週知，行政長官就國安問題所發出的「證明書」是對法院有約束力的（見《國安法》第47條）。誇張點說，就算行政長官說太陽是由西邊升起的，法庭也必須接受，而更不公平的是，行政長官發出此等「證明」的過程完全是黑箱作業的，不必要也不會去聽取我方的證據或意見。
這樣一個「 霸王條款」，對司法獨立的損害顯然而見，但可惜這權力是源自必然合憲的宇宙大法的，在目前的環境，沒有在體制內挑戰它的可能。
你若問我服不服，當然不服啊！
可是當案件走到這裏，情況就是不論我提出多少證據理由去反駁李家超，法庭也必須接受李生的說法為真。甚至說，一個合格的法官一開始就不該給我機會去提反駁的證據。因為既然結論早已註定，說這些純粹是浪費法庭時間。
我其實很懷疑李家超怎可能有閒心去看完那4本書。然後就走去「證明」其內容會引起國安問題。可惜，他的話在現行法律下就是真理，而我也沒有任何質問他的機會。如果有人能代我問問他，是否真看了那4本書，看完有什麼感受，大既挺好玩的……（絕對認真！非愚人節整蠱！）
類似的「茅波」，當然不是第一次出現了。律政司就《願榮光歸香港》申請禁制令的上訴，行政長官曾發出「證明書」，判斷禁制行為涉及「國家安全」，要法庭「完全接受」(fully accept) 行政機關國安決定，並推翻高等法院拒絕就歌曲批出禁制令。還有張敬生挑戰刑期扣減的案件，也就是撞上了「行政長官證明書」這塊鐵板，拗都不用拗了，還要倒賠高昂頌費。那時我已經覺得這「特首證書」的設計也太屈機。張敬生也太寃枉，並擔心類似的事會否陸續有來——果然來了。
每一張行政長官的「證明書」出現，每一次行政如此赤裸裸地干涉司法職能，都是在對香港的法治鞭屍，都是在拆 「說好香港故事」 的台。李生是不知道這個道理還是不介意唱衰香港。現在連審書這種小事也要親自下場「指導」法庭點諗，真是何苦來哉呢？
但反正結論就是，對方有這麼一個核彈在，官司大概是輸定了。而且問題不只是最後的輸贏，而是在法庭裏已不會有討論禁這些書合不合理的空間——國安最大嘛！
我也有想過如果一見證書就縮會否變相鼓勵了他們去濫用這個權力，也有考慮過堅持下去，把道理和態度講清楚仍有其意義。但我也要評估自己的承受能力——當然不是指政治壓力，而是很現實的錢～錢～錢！！！
畢竟輸了JR（司法覆核）要賠的訟費可能是7位數以上啊！如果我是馬斯克我一定打到底，可惜我只是個窮光蛋，必須斤斤計較，為這事破產值不值得……
所以，最終我還是不爭氣的決定退了。未能堅持下去，甚至可能是開了個壞先例，很是抱歉。能預計將來即使再有類似訴訟，除了可能逼到李家超多看幾本書（咳～咳～）大概也難有什麼進展。當然，體制內的路不通，不代表我們就要停止發聲。體制外的曝光、記錄與監察，還是應該也可以繼續去做，比如說建立一個禁書資料庫，好好記錄懲教或其他公共部門查禁書藉的希奇理由。
「行政長官證書」的使用也同樣該受到監察。這些證書是不會自動公開的，更往往能在事情鬧到法庭前就把問題在幕後解決掉——就知道這一權力有多常被利用。但行政長官依法辦事，有什麼不見得光的呢？他大概貴人事忙沒空交代。那就只能靠我們這些好市民，幫他公開和整理這些政績啦～
最後，要感謝律師團隊願意花上那麼多的時間心力去陪我試這徒勞的一遭。李家超可以用「證明書」代替真．睇書，你們可以沒有這個捷徑啊。雖然官司最後沒有結果，但過程中能讀到4本「國安級別」 的好書，或許也算不虛此行！
😁訂閱我的 Patreon 頻道： patreon.com/chowhangtung ｜請我飲杯咖啡☕️、飲支酒🍶
📝寫信給我：請寄往馬鞍山郵局郵政信箱75號，無須在信封上寫明「鄒幸彤收」，信件抬頭稱呼即可；如想收到回信，請在「信內」(非信封) 寫上回信地址(請付充足郵資喔～嘿嘿～)
***
The April 26 Statement on Banned Books and the Chief Executive Certificate
April is coming to an end, and soon the sunlight of May will shine upon us. As we stand at the transition of these two months, there's something important I must share with you all - not the People’s Daily editorial on April 26, 1989, but my 2025 statement on banned books.
On April Fool's Day 2025, I was supposed to have my judicial review on the Correctional Services Department's (CSD) refusal for me to receive four books: The People Will Not Forget, Little Brother2, The River of No Return: A Memoir of Szeto Wah, and The Words of the Bell-Ringer: Memoir of the Rev. Chu Yiu Ming. But you may have noticed that the hearing was cancelled – by me.
Out of practical considerations, I decided to dismiss the case. However, since it is not just a personal dispute, but one that addresses certain important public issues of how state power defines and enforces book bans, I find it imperative to explain my decision openly.
After we filed the case with the court on July 30 last year, John Lee issued a Chief Executive Certificate on November 26. Therein, he referenced Section 115 of the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance and, upon reviewing the contents of the four books, the unique prison environment, and the assessment by the Commissioner of CSD etc., as he claimed, he "certified" that allowing an inmate to access any of those books would implicate national security.
As is widely known, a Certificate issued by the Chief Executive concerning national security matters is binding on the courts (see Article 47 of the National Security Law). To put it bluntly, if the Chief Executive declared that the sun rises in the West, the court would have to accept that as a fact. Even more troubling is the fact the process of issuing such Certificates is completely opaque. With such a Certificate, the court would have no obligation or opportunity to consider evidence or arguments from my side.
The existence of such an "overbearing clause", with its power, originates from an expansive national security framework and perforce constitutional, is clearly harmful to judicial independence. But under the current circumstances, there is no way to challenge it within the existing system.
If you ask me whether I accept this, of course I don’t!
At this point of the case, and regardless of how much evidence I can present to refute John Lee's decision, the court must treat his words as truthful. By their standard, a proper judge shouldn't even allow me any chance to present any evidence in the first place. For my part, given the conclusion is predetermined, continuing to argue would simply be a waste of the court's time.
I honestly find it hard to believe that John Lee had enough time to read all the four books before “confirming” that their content poses national security risks. Unfortunately, his claims must be taken as the truth under the current legal framework, and I do not have any chance to dispute them. Indeed, if someone bothers to ask him on my behalf whether he really had those four books with him and what his thoughts were after reading them, I think it could be rather entertaining. (I am serious about this suggestion; it's not an April Fool's trick.)
Foul play of this nature is hardly new to us. In the government’s appeal to ban the song Glory to Hong Kong, a Chief Executive Certificate was issued, claiming that the injunction was necessary for national security concerns. It compelled the court to “fully accept” the decision of the Executive branch and overturn the previous ruling by a lower court. In another case, protester Cheung King Sang Kinson sought a sentence reduction. However, he was hit hard by the Chief Executive Certificate and had to pay heavy legal costs, without even given a chance to present his arguments. Back then, I already felt that this "Chief Executive Certificate" was overly powerful. Cheung’s case was clearly unjust, and I was worrying that more cases of similar kind might follow. And alas, here we are.
Every issuance of the Chief Executive “Certificate” and every blatant interference of the executive authority in the judiciary are direct attacks on the rule of law in Hong Kong, undermining any effort to “tell a good Hong Kong story”. Does Mr. Lee not reckon this, or does he not care about tarnishing the reputation of Hong Kong? Why would he bother to “direct” the court and labour himself with such minor tasks as reviewing books?
So, my conclusion is, with them having a powerful legal weapon on their table, it was almost certain that I would lose the case. And then, it is not just a matter of winning or losing a lawsuit, but rather that there is no longer any room in the court to discuss if banning these books is reasonable. National security must override all else.
I did think if withdrawing the case upon seeing the Certificate might encourage further abuse of the authority, and contemplated standing my ground, believing it would be worth articulating my stance and arguments. However, I also must assess my capacity to continue with the lawsuit. My eventual decision had nothing to do with the political pressure but the practical concerns about finance - that of money, money, money!
Should I lose the judicial review, the legal costs could easily exceed seven digits. If I were Elon Musk, I’d fight to the end. Unfortunately, I’m just an average citizen who must consider whether it's worth risking bankruptcy over this matter.
Hence, in the end, I regretfully decided to back down. I am sorry for failing to persist and may have even set a bad precedent. But I can foresee that even if similar lawsuits are filed in the future, except for the possibility of forcing Lee to read a few more books (ahem….), they probably won’t go too far. Of course, just because we can't get anywhere within the system doesn't mean we have to stop speaking out. We should and can continue to expose, record and monitor book bans outside the system by, for instance, setting up a database of banned books and/or keeping records of all the bizarre reasons given by the CSD or other public authorities for banning particular books.
The use of “Chief Executive's Certificate” must also be monitored. These Certificates are not automatically made public. They are used behind closed doors to throttle any case and issue before they ever reach the court. That alone shows how often such power is likely used. But what is there to hide if the Chief Executive is simply following the law? In case the Chief Executive is too busy to explain himself, then let the good citizens like us help him publicise and collate his good deeds.
Lastly, I want to thank my legal team for having devoted so much time and effort to support me in this futile endeavor. John Lee could have issued the “Certificate” without truthfully reading the four books. But my lawyers did not have such convenience for their work. Although the case did not yield any result in court, it did have guided my lawyers to read through four good books of “national security level”, rendering this legal journey a rather worthwhile one.
😁 Subscribe to my Patreon channel： patreon.com/chowhangtung ｜ Buy me a coffee ☕️ or a bottle of wine🍶
📝 You can write to me at: P.O. Box 75, Ma On Shan Post Office, Hong Kong. If you want to receive a reply, please write the address on the letter (not the envelope) (please pay sufficient postage~hehe~)
The following is the message that originally appeared on a page of the Chow Hang Tung Club Facebook account on December 18, 2023. It is about Chow Hang-tung being placed in solitary confinement. The post is no longer accessible.【 #別讓她孤單地囚禁 】
#水飯女皇 絕非浪得虛名！
這邊廂，在歐洲獲 #法德人權與法治奬；
那邊廂，在牆內再再再次被送入 #水飯房
今次，更突破近期的記錄，單獨囚禁 #18天
最莫名奇妙的原因是：信～太～多
阿彤話：「不要過份恐懼和擔心，請繼續寄信嚟交心」
別讓她孤單地囚禁～～請一起再細讀她在 #國際人權日 所思所想，並分享給朋友們！
https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=229466090172783&set=a.110406778745382
精神與她同在，就是給她最大的支持、最好的聖誕禮物
#18天不是台灣啤酒
#連續7個月9次單獨囚禁
#獄中的聖誕小禮物和大餐會否被消失
Hang-tung gives the literal translation of Yu Hua’s novel, 兄弟, as “Little Brother,” but in its first English edition, it is called Brothers.