Hong Kongers used to criticize the Chinese Communist Party for its “fake elections” and its staged meetings, at which decisions made in advance got passed “unanimously.”
They also criticized Iran’s elections, where potential candidates were screened beforehand by committees that decided applicants’ eligibility to stand for election.
Such practices run contrary to the principles of universal and equal suffrage.
Who would have thought that elections in Hong Kong would become even more distorted than those in Iran, with aspiring candidates being disqualified for no reason?
The UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that freedom from fear is a basic right for everyone, but Hong Kongers worry about whether the government will disqualify candidates again and again.
How can an election in which people are not free from fear meet the standards of universal and equal suffrage?
Absurdly, the Hong Kong Electoral Affairs Commission has not explained why it “cannot accept” the word of potential candidates.
If the commission today says that it “cannot accept” the word of a candidate who at some time in the past signed a statement supporting self-determination for Hong Kong, who is to say that tomorrow it will not say the same about candidates who have never signed such a document?
If that happens, the only candidates to choose from would be those meeting the government’s definition of being patriotic and loving Hong Kong.
Such a scenario might be deemed improbable, but it is by no means impossible.
It was unimaginable a few years ago that the Hong Kong government would reach the point of disqualifying potential candidates for no reason — the situation is becoming increasingly ridiculous.
The Hong Kong government has said that disqualifying candidates does not amount to depriving them of their political rights for the rest of their lives.
It said that when, one day, the government accepts that they have mended their ways, they can be requalified to stand as candidates.
However, this claim is absurd.
Hong Kong’s Basic Law protects the equal eligibility of all permanent residents to stand for election, but when Legislative Council elections were held in 2016, this did not stop the government from arbitrarily adding the step of requiring potential candidates to sign a declaration stating that they uphold the People’s Republic of China (PRC).
Absurdly, even if a potential candidate signs the declaration, the returning officer has the power not to accept it, and candidates without a signed declaration are not automatically deemed to not uphold the PRC and disqualified.
This makes it clear that the declaration is just a superfluous pretext cooked up by the government for disqualifying anyone that it wants to.
Hong Kong has become a society ruled not by law, but by governmental whim.
If it says a person can be a candidate, they can, and if it says they cannot, then they cannot. The “declarations” and “non-acceptances” are mere pretexts for those in power to act as they wish.
Hong Kongers have to go along with whatever the government says.
They need no longer ask for whom the bell tolls — it tolls for all of them. Today’s Hong Kong is no longer the Hong Kong of before. It has returned to the days of authoritarianism, and the “ordinary happiness” that Hong Kongers desire is more out of reach than ever.
Matthew Wan is a commentator in Hong Kong.
Translated by Julian Clegg
The cancelation this week of President William Lai’s (賴清德) state visit to Eswatini, after the Seychelles, Madagascar and Mauritius revoked overflight permits under Chinese pressure, is one more measure of Taiwan’s shrinking executive diplomatic space. Another channel that deserves attention keeps growing while the first contracts. For several years now, Taipei has been one of Europe’s busiest legislative destinations. Where presidents and foreign ministers cannot land, parliamentarians do — and they do it in rising numbers. The Italian parliament opened the year with its largest bipartisan delegation to Taiwan to date: six Italian deputies and one senator, drawn from six
Recently, Taipei’s streets have been plagued by the bizarre sight of rats running rampant and the city government’s countermeasures have devolved into an anti-intellectual farce. The Taipei Parks and Street Lights Office has attempted to eradicate rats by filling their burrows with polyurethane foam, seeming to believe that rats could not simply dig another path out. Meanwhile, as the nation’s capital slowly deteriorates into a rat hive, the Taipei Department of Environmental Protection has proudly pointed to the increase in the number of poisoned rats reported in February and March as a sign of success. When confronted with public concerns over young
Taiwan and India are important partners, yet this reality is increasingly being overshadowed in current debates. At a time when Taiwan-India relations are at a crossroads, with clear potential for deeper engagement and cooperation, the labor agreement signed in February 2024 has become a source of friction. The proposal to bring in 1,000 migrant workers from India is already facing significant resistance, with a petition calling for its “indefinite suspension” garnering more than 40,000 signatures. What should have been a straightforward and practical step forward has instead become controversial. The agreement had the potential to serve as a milestone in
China has long given assurances that it would not interfere in free access to the global commons. As one Ministry of Defense spokesperson put it in 2024, “the Chinese side always respects the freedom of navigation and overflight entitled to countries under international law.” Although these reassurances have always been disingenuous, China’s recent actions display a blatant disregard for these principles. Countries that care about civilian air safety should take note. In April, President Lai Ching-te (賴清德) canceled a planned trip to Eswatini for the 40th anniversary of King Mswati III’s coronation and the 58th anniversary of bilateral diplomatic
RSS