Before Hong Kong’s Legislative Council elections yesterday, all the political parties made every effort to attract votes, promoting their own policies while attacking opponents at various forums.
Meanwhile, another battle has taken place in the form of a social movement against the “national education program” for primary and secondary school students. When the Hong Kong government made no concessions even after 90,000 demonstrators took to the streets on July 29, three high school students from Scholarism, a student group, started a hunger strike in front of the Central Government Offices on Aug. 30. On Sept. 1, 40,000 demonstrators gathered there to show their support, and some demonstrators joined the strike. On Sept. 3, the first day of the school year, 10,000 students, parents, and citizens gathered there once again. At this point, the organizers announced their intention to escalate the demonstration, and launched a school-wide strike to boycott the new program.
The two events are not completely unrelated. The pan-democracy camp supports the anti-national education program campaign, while the pro-communist camp supports the program to teach Hong Kongers to identify themselves with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). In addition, since Hong Kong Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying (梁振英) came to power on July 1, he and his staff have been haunted by illegal construction projects as well as corruption scandals. Leung did little to address these problems, causing housing prices to soar to unprecedented levels within a very short time. There was a rush on property buying and the government rushed out 10 major measures to get things under control, but these were of little use, and the public became increasingly testy. This situation originally benefited the pro-democracy camp’s election campaign, but then bizarre internal struggles started to emerge.
The power struggles mostly occurred between the Democratic Party and People Power. The former is a relatively large party, and the latter is a relatively small party that separated from the League of Social Democrats due to differing attitudes toward the Democratic Party. Earlier, the Democratic Party and People Power had opposing stances on the “five-constituency resignation” and “de facto referendum” through the re-elections in these constituencies. Later, when the Democratic Party compromised with Beijing on the political reform plan, the People Power called it pro-communist and a fake democratic party. It even upheld a slogan, “snipe at the Democratic Party,” during the District Council election last year, although it was essentially criticizing all the pro-democracy parties except for itself. As a result, it sacrificed its own electoral success. It was prepared to see pro-communist candidates win rather than help the Democratic Party’s candidates. This caused the Democratic Party to accuse People Power of being the “B Team” for the pro-communist Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong.
People Power has extreme views and does not attract moderate voters. It therefore relies on support from the pan-democracy camp voter base. It launched a large propaganda campaign against the Democrats, linking them to Chinese communists.
The Democratic Party, meanwhile, had adopted what were considered overly soft policies, and these turned off young voters. The youth vote, then, became the new target demographic for People Power’s campaign. The Democrats’ support ratings were significantly affected, causing them to declare war against People Power, accusing it of colluding with the CCP, receiving funds from pro-communist activists and allowing candidates to do business in China.
People Power fired back, accusing the Democratic Party, League of Social Democrats and Civic Party of receiving political donations from Next Media Group chairman Jimmy Lai (黎智英).
The political reform plan provided for five “super district councilors,” popularly elected legislators-at-large. Of course, only candidates from the larger parties really had any chance of winning these seats and the new system was regarded as being stacked against smaller parties. People Power then called on voters to cast “blank ballots” in the election, because it would rather lose the seats to pro-communist candidates than those from the Democratic Party, League of Social Democrats and Civic Party.
On the face of it, the pan-democracy parties share common beliefs: they all strive for universal suffrage and an end to single-party authoritarian rule, condemn the Tiananmen Square Massacre of 1989 and oppose Leung. Surely they can find common ground despite their differences if they really disagree on minor matters. Why must they destroy one another, forgetting the bigger picture? Is it possible there is more to this than meets the eye?
We have seen similar things happen within the pan-green camp in Taiwan. Perhaps they could learn something from what is happening in Hong Kong.
Paul Lin is a political commentator.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing