The Hong Kong government has suspended the Hong Kong National Party after its call for the territory’s independence was perceived by China as a severe threat to national security.
This cruel and unjust ban on the freedom of association and speech in Hong Kong has sent dangerous signals to the world.
Founded by Andy Hon-tin Chan (陳浩天) on March 28, 2016, the Hong Kong National Party was composed of many student leaders and activists who were frustrated with the disappointing outcomes of the “Umbrella movement” in late 2014.
Striving to replace Chinese dictatorial rule with a democratically elected republic and empowering Hong Kongers against the marginalization of their territory, this new party intensified debate over the terms of constitutional citizenship in post-colonial Hong Kong.
Chinese officials in charge of Hong Kong affairs have condemned any talk of independence as treasonous, and urged the Hong Kong authorities to prosecute and punish the activists. The local ruling elites have agreed with Beijing and called for harsh actions against pro-independence activists.
Today, simple talk of Hong Kong’s independence is prohibited in universities, schools and the media. Evidently, Beijing and its local handpicked agents have demonized pro-independence sentiment, thereby creating a public panic and imposing draconian control over the territory.
This has severely jeopardized the public’s right to freedom of expression and association, which was supposed to be protected by the rule of law.
Now the trade war between China and the US is escalating, a great sense of crisis has prompted the Chinese Communist Party to silence internal dissent and suppress civil rights.
Beijing, worried that pro-independence voices might develop into an uncontrollable force against the Hong Kong government and even China, is keen to repress Hong Kong’s civil society into quiescence, replacing the promise of administrative autonomy with total submission to the dictatorship.
Whatever Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam (林鄭月娥) feels about the territory’s future, she senses that the political wind is blowing to her advantage. She has carefully positioned herself as a Chinese patriot, emphasizing nationalism and conservative values.
She appears to be more skillful than the hopelessly divided pro-democracy camp.
Authoritarian leaders worldwide seek to delegitimize universal values, human rights and civic liberties. Ruling with an anti-US platform and going after the Hong Kong National Party have not only made Lam look tough and loyal in the eyes of Beijing, it has also weakened the credibility of local opposition parties.
With authoritarianism on the rise, many Hong Kongers have doubts about the wisdom and cost of embracing Western liberal values.
During the darkest moments of the Chinese Communist Revolution in January 1930, Mao Zedong (毛澤東) said: “A single spark can start a prairie fire.”
This remark implied a hope that small groups would give rise to a powerful revolutionary force, and a warning that minor mistakes could lead to disaster.
At that time, Mao held on to the hope that a tiny group of dedicated communists would eventually defeat the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) regime, take over the nation and achieve a socialist revolution.
Only time will tell if history will repeat itself in Hong Kong. Yet, the systematic demonization, suppression and prosecution of Hong Kong’s pro-independence activists does nothing more than erode a system of good governance and reduce the number of genuine actors in the political domain.
Joseph Tse-Hei Lee is a professor of history at Pace University in New York City.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers