Hong Kong's legislative elections last week were an exceptional example of democratic elections under an authoritarian government. Although the democratic camp won 60 percent of the direct vote, they did not gain a majority, only 25 of the 60 seats. It has therefore been portrayed by the international media as a defeat for the democratic camp and a great victory for Beijing's rule over Hong Kong. Meanwhile, officials in China's Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office happily declared that it was the most democratic election in the history of the territory.
Pinning their hopes on the effects of their demonstrations, the democratic camp said before the elections that their goal was to gain a majority with 31 seats and use the Legislative Council as a counter-balance to Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa (
A close look at the proportional representation system, however, shows that if democrats wanted to gain a majority in the legislature, they would have to win 24 seats or more in the direct elections, or 80 percent of the vote. This is almost impossible in a democratic election, and probably only occurs when a communist party elects its secretary-general.
The political actions of Hong Kong democrats are thus based on unrealistic vote calculations. Although there have been calls for tactical voting, attempting to mobilize huge numbers of voters in order to bring about the democratization of Hong Kong is naive and leaves Beijing with much room to maneuver.
Clearly, Hong Kong democracy lacks a fair electoral system capable of truly reflecting public opinion. Public participation in the election, which resulted in a record voter turnout of 55 percent, nonetheless ended in heavy defeat. Even if the democratic camp had won a majority, the "Administrative Control" written into Hong Kong's Basic Law makes the Legislative Council little more than a consultative institution. Furthermore, the National People's Congress dismissed the notion of real, meaningful democracy in Hong Kong back in April.
This may explain why many mild-mannered, middle class democratic legislators failed to get re-elected, while the bold and outspoken popular former radio host Albert Cheng (鄭經翰) and "Longhair" Leung Kwok-hung (梁國雄) together received more votes than the Liberal Party -- the second largest party with 10 seats. In contrast to the tears of the top leaders of the Democratic Party, "Longhair" protested against election oversights outside the Special Administrative Region (SAR) government as soon as he was elected.
This brings our thoughts to Taiwan and the period prior to the first legislative election. Although there had been elections for some legislative seats, they were too few, and there was no effective counterweight to old-guard politicians. The opposition movement has never won a majority, and has therefore clashed with the establishment, by focusing on the struggle to implement a democratic system. The purpose of elections is not just to collect votes, but rather to function as a link to social movements and liberate the voice of public opinion to challenge authority.
Returning to Hong Kong, the latest election has left it at a crossroads. The unfair electoral system has belittled the will of the majority and turned the mainstream into losers. This is the result of lazy public representatives. The responsibility of every politician is to promote the wishes of the public. This is the only way to save democracy in Hong Kong.
Hsu Yung-ming is an assistant research fellow at the Sun Yat-sen Institute for Social Sciences and Philosophy at the Academia Sinica.
Translated by Perry Svensson
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS