After the 2014 “Umbrella movement,” this year’s legislative council election in Hong Kong was indicative of the coming of a new democratic era.
The representation of ideology and struggle of part politics are primarily divided into three categories: localism, pan-democracy and pro-China, embedded in the context of democratic transformation and party politics fragmentation. This simplified categorization has triggered at least two waves of democratic debate.
In the first wave, the struggle between the pan-democracy camp and pro-China camp initiates a democratic consciousness after Hong Kong’s reunification (also called the transfer of sovereignty over Hong Kong) with China in 1997.
Pan-democrats support real democracy in Hong Kong and endeavor to trigger social reforms, such as a retirement protection scheme and social housing policy, while the pro-Chinese attempt to safeguard economic benefits for the middle class and bureaucrats, and maintain the political “status quo.”
The social meaning of contrasting the two camps in this historical context focuses on the legitimacy of the democratic mechanism and institution. The discourse of the pan-democracy camp mainly assumes that the existence of a democratic mechanism can raise public concern over various social issues.
Ironically, the pro-China camp propagandized the imperative of aristocratic and feudal legitimacy under the China regime in the name of economic prosperity and political stability, which is contradictory and runs counter to democratic values.
If there is no transparency in the democratic mechanism or oversight of public affairs, the pro-China camp cannot freely express their ideas to the public as being in pursuit of the “common good,” and it is also impossible to reduce corruption.
In the second wave of debate, the rapid rise of localism can be seen as an expression of frustration toward the pan-democracy camp after the “Umbrella movement,” and a strong appeal for either national self-determination or democratic self-determination, as opposed to building a sound and transparent democratic institution based on the principle of and commitment to the Basic Law proposed by the pan-democracy camp.
The main contribution of localism is bringing the issue of Hong Kong independence to the public and the media and being critical of a “one country, two systems” policy as a false consciousness reinforced by the pro-China camp.
The debate between the localist and pan-democracy camp revolves around the question of whether Hong Kong as a sovereign nation could achieve democracy and liberation from China.
While the pan-democracy camp puts more emphasis on tackling poverty and addressing the needs of disadvantaged groups, the localism camp is attempting to break through the limitations of a “one country, two systems” policy and says that Hong Kong independence or self-determination should be raised to the top of political agenda.
The two waves of democratic debate rose in different stages of Hong Kong’s political development, but they have ignited controversy over Hong Konger identity and the consolidation of a democratic institution in and after the process of the legislative council elections.
This month’s election was the first since the “Umbrella movement,” which raised a powerful voice for change in both the pan-democracy and pro-China camps. The media spotlight focused on the 26 candidates who were elected for the first time, in a field of 70.
It was widely expected that there would be a shift from pan-democrat to localists as an expression of dissatisfaction over sluggish democratic development and while election results reflect this, the shift was perhaps not so dramatic.
So-called “localists” are not so well-defined in Hong Kong. The camp includes people who advocate democratic self-determination and independence.
However, even this definition is problematic, as it overlaps with some of the demands of the parties within the pan-democracy camp. It would be better defined as people who consciously distinguish themselves from the traditional pan-democrats.
Among this newly developed group, six have been elected; five are from the Geographical Constituency and one is from the Functional Constituency.
They are all new to the legislative council. This implies two things:
First, it reflects the reaction of voters against the increasingly repressive Chinese government in Hong Kong. Although Hong Kongers were promised a “one country, two systems” policy and that “Hong Kongers rule Hong Kong” and a democracy under the Basic Law, confidence in the policies has been greatly damaged under Hong Kong Chief Executive Leung Chung-ying’s (梁振英) government.
Many believe that Beijing is actually ruling Hong Kong and that the Hong Kong government is merely a puppet.
The latest example is the de facto arrest of Causeway Bay Bookstore shareholder Lee Bo (李波) and five other people in Hong Kong because of their alleged breach of Chinese law, which damages the legitimacy of the Basic Law.
In this environment, Hong Kongers are forced to consider more radical options concerning the future of the territory, such as self-determination and even independence.
It could be manifested by the support of candidates that employ this issue as their main agenda in the election at the expense of the candidates of the pan-democracy camp who are focused on social issues, such as workers’ rights and housing issues.
It is also a vote of dissatisfaction toward mainstream pan-democrats. Pan-democrats have been the main voice fighting for democratization in the past 30 years.
Their means are predominantly confined to the legislative council and “peaceful, rational and non-violent” action in social movements.
Such measures were successful in blocking the legislation of Article 23 and the National Education curriculum.
However, it exposed its limitations in the political reform process and the subsequent “Umbrella movement.” Many Hong Kongers are disillusioned by the lack of concrete outcomes.
This “failure” was attributed to the non-aggressive and non-radical action by pan-democrats, and many people are desperate for change.
It could be seen in the increasingly “radical” actions during the “Umbrella movement” and its aftermath, such as the “fishball revolution” in February this year. Even if people do not truly believe in self-determination and independence as a way out, they are happy to vote for localists as protest against pan-democrats.
Apart from the emergence of localists, the successful campaign of newly elected lawmaker Eddie Chu is another striking point.
Although the electoral system could be regarded as a proportional representative one, the large size of the electoral district makes it difficult for candidates without party support to campaign to their constituents.
This is especially true for the pan-democrats, who lack the support of the central allocation system of votes that the pro-China camp possesses. Thus, in past elections, it was rare for an independent from the pan-democracy camp to win legislative council elections.
Chu broke that rule.
He started his campaign as an underdog. He only had financial support from independent donations, and a small campaign team.
He remained in the bottom half of the polls until one week before the election. He was expected to lose just as many independent candidates had before.
This began to change when his electoral debates were publicized and popularized on the Internet. People began to listen the issues he raised and learn about the risks he had taken.
He challenged the issue of land ownership in the New Territories that no one had dared to raise publicly in the past, since it involves the collusion between the government, landowners and the Triad.
He attempted to use the election as a platform to expose their exchanges.
Many people admire his courage in fighting the establishment. On election day he had the highest votes in the Geographical Constituency.
Since he is challenging the enormous vested interests that have been rooted in the New Territories for many years, it comes as little surprise that he received death threats after the election.
Chu’s campaign proved to be a good formula for future independent candidates. It also contributes to the development of Hong Kong by having more voices separate from the main political parties.
Although not all localist candidates are elected into the legislative council, they have succeeded in raising the agenda and forcing pan-democrats to respond to the issue.
It is now crucial for pan-democrats to deal with the new challenges and issues properly, or they might continue to fade in coming elections.
Adrian Chiu and Chung Ming-lun are senior research assistants at Hong Kong Baptist University.
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