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
Taiwan aims to elevate its strategic position in supply chains by becoming an artificial intelligence (AI) hub for Nvidia Corp, providing everything from advanced chips and components to servers, in an attempt to edge out its closest rival in the region, South Korea. Taiwan’s importance in the AI ecosystem was clearly reflected in three major announcements Nvidia made during this year’s Computex trade show in Taipei. First, the US company’s number of partners in Taiwan would surge to 122 this year, from 34 last year, according to a slide shown during CEO Jensen Huang’s (黃仁勳) keynote speech on Monday last week.
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
RSS