Causeway Bay Books manager Lam Wing-kei (林榮基) dropped a political bombshell at a press conference in Hong Kong on Friday last week, detailing his unlawful arrest and eight-month detention in China, and his and his bookstore associates’ officially staged confession.
His reference to the Central Investigation Team ordered by the top leadership of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to investigate the case shocked the world.
He ended the interview with a powerful statement: “I want to tell the whole world: Hong Kongers will not bow down before brute force,” expressing his defiance in the face of a mighty authoritarian state.
Lam’s courageous act motivated 6,000 people to take to the streets on Saturday, showing solidarity with the political victims and protesting against China. While Beijing launched a comprehensive smear campaign against Lam, there is now renewed attention to the political ramifications of the forced abduction and imprisonment of these local publishers at several levels.
First, the incident has marked the beginning of the end of China’s “one country, two systems” policy. When Chinese security agents are allowed to cross the border to arrest anyone under Hong Kong’s jurisdiction, this completely violates the Sino-British Joint Declaration (1984) and the Basic Law, the mini-constitution of the territory after 1997.
Many Hong Kongers worry that China can suppress local residents with impunity, arresting activists and dissidents without a fair trial and imprisoning them solely for expressing their independent opinions.
The days of the territory’s high degree of autonomy are numbered, and Hong Kongers need to consider what kind of system they would like to see in 2047, when Hong Kong is mandated to be integrated into the Chinese political, legal and socioeconomic order. Although Hong Kong’s existing laws and civil institutions can easily continue after 2047, the CCP leaders in Beijing still have to clarify the official position on the continuity of the “one country, two systems” framework.
The longer Beijing delays the conversation, the more uncertainty for Hong Kong. For instance, if a Hong Konger plans to apply for a 30-year mortgage next year and beyond, how should the banks evaluate the implementation of Chinese land tenure and property ownership regulations in the territory after 2047?
Second, the parading of those kidnapped booksellers’ confessions reveals the Maoist and Stalinist show-trial practices and some imperial Chinese authoritarian roots. The intended psychological impact of such draconian measures on the population is the same: The state intends to inculcate fear and submission by making an example of the few unlucky targets and destroying their lives.
Yet, in this era of globalization, CCP officials are fighting a losing battle because the forced abduction has become a political embarrassment for Beijing. Although the officials have threatened and stopped many Hong Kong commercial publishers from selling materials critical of the CCP, they are still unable to stop any critical discussion on the Internet.
Third, the Causeway Bay Books incident is by no means about the kidnapping of a handful of independent publishers. The wider narrative touches on a much significant struggle by Hong Kongers to free themselves from domination by the governing elites and from further marginalization by China.
The proliferation of popular discontent is best illustrated by two intertwined political campaigns. The first one is waged publicly by Hong Kongers, including some enlightened business leaders, to unseat Hong Kong Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying (梁振英) next year. The second is a grassroots struggle for democratic governance that motivated the months-long “Umbrella movement” in late 2014 and the “fishball revolution” on Lunar New Year’s Day in February. Both upheavals pivoted on the rapid expansion of privilege and power of the ruling elites and Beijing’s appointed political agents.
Lam’s revelations have had a liberating impact on political discourse in Hong Kong similar to that of the WikiLeaks revelations.
As Slavoj Zizek has said: “The only surprising thing about the WikiLeaks revelations is that they contain no surprises.”
People can no longer deny what happened and what everyone suspected to have happened.
“Even if we know an unpleasant fact, saying it in public changes everything,” Zizek added.
Putting the truth in the public domain makes it impossible to hold onto the official propaganda that relies on the public’s refusal to recognize the reality.
In short, Lam has done Hong Kong a great favor by shattering the taboos about 2047 and permitting more informed assessment to be made about the territory’s future. In the 1980s, London compromised with Beijing to introduce the “one country, two systems” policy to ease the public’s fears about the handover of the territory’s sovereignty to China. Now, the illusions of prosperity and stability are gone. Recognizing the truth about the collapse of “one country, two systems” is the best for Hong Kong, as Hong Kongers can configure a new political vision for the territory and formulate a comprehensive strategy to negotiate with China.
Joseph Tse-hei Lee is professor of history at Pace University in New York.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations