Early last month, a group of young student movement and self-determination and pro-localization activists were elected to Hong Kong’s Legislative Council, completing the generational transition from the pan-democracy camp. Ever since the 2014 “Umbrella movement,” there has been hope that the political situation will lighten up and that the narrow establishment will start incorporating new forces.
If Beijing were willing to abandon Hong Kong Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying (梁振英), who has thoroughly disappointed the public, and instead supported a more open-minded member of the establishment for chief executive, such as former Legislative Council president Jasper Tsang (曾鈺成), that would have mitigated the political deadlock and conflict of the past few years.
However, the controversy has intensified in connection to the swearing in of lawmakers over the past two weeks.
On Oct. 12, two localist lawmakers intentionally read the word zhongguo (中國, China) in the oath as zhina (支那) — a derogative name for China that originated in India and was introduced to China through the translation of Buddhist texts — which is denounced by pro-Chinese Communist Party (CCP) people in Hong Kong and China.
On Tuesday last week, using a technicality, newly appointed Legislative Council President Andrew Leung (梁君彥) said that the five opposition lawmakers’ oaths were invalid.
On the same day, the Hong Kong government took legal action to block these lawmakers from taking the oath again.
The following day, student organizations at Hong Kong’s universities organized a signature drive to protest against “the Hong Kong communist regime,” for destroying the separation between the three branches of government and for being “willing to serve as the guard dog of the CCP colonial hegemon.”
The conflict has revealed the hypocrisy of a half-baked democratic system. Andrew Leung’s legislative seat is based in a functional constituency, and because of the unreasonable election system, he can be automatically re-elected several times. As the newly appointed Legislative Council president, he can also arbitrarily decide that newly elected constituency lawmakers elected by tens of thousands of voters will not be allowed to take up their duties.
Similarly, Leung Chun-ying was elected only by 689 members of the 1,200-strong Election Committee, but he still interferes with the legislature’s operations.
A similarly absurd situation existed in Taiwan prior to the first free legislative election. Permanent legislators and National Assembly members controlled the legislature that routinely elected the president and the vice president. The legislators elected in the legislative by-elections could not overcome the old thieves. From the dangwai (黨外, “outside the party”) era to the foundation of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), opposition politicians often took various actions to display their antagonism during the swearing-in ceremony.
In a democratic and reasonable system, the swearing-in ceremony fills a symbolic function that no one would make a big fuss over. When there is a lack of systemic legitimacy, regardless of how solemn and sacred a ceremony is, it will not be able to hide the undemocratic shortcomings and build respect among the public.
It is worth asking why Beijing and the Hong Kong government are taking such a tough stance and going out of their way to create an uproar over “humiliations to China,” and trying to deprive the popularly elected legislators of their rights to participate in politics.
In the existing framework, the independence of legislators to propose bills is highly restricted and functional constituencies in practice have veto powers. All the opposition can do is to procrastinate and slow down the agenda, and obstruct particular problematic budget bills. The result is that they will be accused of opposition for the sake of opposition.
A strategy that would be more in line with Beijing’s reasoning would be to show limited tolerance and use the unreasonable election system to let the opposition camp, which received more than half of all votes, to hold a minority of all seats and allow the Legislative Council to operate independently and function as a political safety valve, since the legislators still would not be able to influence the overall situation.
Furthermore, once the opposition enters the legislature, they will be forced to display a peaceful and rational demeanor, and can no longer take to the streets in protests as if they had nothing to lose.
The political chaos in Hong Kong is caused by Leung constantly provoking the civil society, suppressing the demands for true universal suffrage, provoking the conflict over Hong Kong independence, and interfering with universities’ autonomy and with the operations of the Legislative Council.
Why is that so, when there clearly is a way to control Hong Kong that requires less energy and at a lower cost? After all, if only the government were willing to show some tolerance, it would be able to put the opposition in a position in the legislature in which it would be unable to have a significant influence.
There are more and more signs that the power struggle in the CCP’s politburo has trickled all the way down to Hong Kong as Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and former Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) and his supporters struggle on without concern for whether it will bring chaos to Hong Kong. This helps explain various strange and irrational events.
However, using opposition to Hong Kong independence as an excuse to block legitimately and popularly elected legislators might only result in even wider protests.
Beijing ignored the Umbrella movement because it was not part of the established system, and the only way the protesters could attract the government’s attention was to create a deadlock.
Today, even that fragmented, half-baked democratic channel is blocked and popularly elected legislators are not allowed to take up their positions. Is that not tantamount to encouraging voters to take more forceful action?
What set off the French Revolution was the incompetence of the French king’s royal council, which caused the leaders of the bourgeoisie to leave and set up their own national assembly. It would seem that Hong Kong has taken the first step on this dangerous road.
Ivan Ho is a professor of sociology at National Taiwan University.
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