In the Christian calendar, Easter means the renewal of personal faith in the passion and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the Holy Week symbolizes a hope for the living with a better future.
Unfortunately, this Easter season offered little optimism for a broader reconciliation between the pro-Beijing establishment and pro-democracy politicians in Hong Kong.
On April 9, nine leaders of the months-long peaceful occupation protests in late 2014, widely known as the “Umbrella movement,” were found guilty by the Hong Kong court. The details of the lawsuit were set out clearly in the court documents and in the global media coverage.
This high-profile, controversial verdict is of great significance because it highlights some serious problems facing pro-democracy activists in the territory.
The first problem concerns the extensive dissolution of the remnants of former British liberal-colonial governance. This raises a pressing question of how much civic liberties, freedom and human rights Hong Kongers still have in the current political climate.
The fact that the Hong Kong government mobilized its executive, judicial and law enforcement resources against these demonstrators revealed the ruling elites’ deep fear toward the growth of pro-democracy and pro-independence sentiments. Irrational as it seemed, the local officials were determined to crack down on dissent and smother civil society, showing their unquestionable loyalty to Beijing.
Second, what should be the purest of matters became highly politicized in the court. Spawning an ideological battle in the territory for years, with the freedom of expression and assembly as the chosen battlefield, the verdict had a chilling effect on free speech and protests. Creating a culture of fear, it jeopardized Hong Kongers’ ability to speak out freely, to demonstrate publicly and to defend their rights peacefully.
When Hong Kong became unashamedly authoritarian, the potential for university students, professors, clergy and professionals to be activists had diminished. They might self-censor and abstain from activism to avoid offending the governing authorities.
The third challenge concerns the protesters’ willingness to embrace a self-reflexive mode, reassessing their vision and strategy of nonviolent struggle, rather than resign themselves and walk away.
The option of peaceful conflict resolution seemed to have disappeared with the end of the “Umbrella movement” and the prosecution of these nonviolent leaders. Yet, becoming the first group of political prisoners in the postcolonial era, these demonstrators passed the point of no return and would likely be permanent fighters against the Hong Kong state.
It was truly admirable that they disobeyed what they thought to be unjust laws when embracing civil disobedience.
It was also a depressing sign of the times that the ruling elites deliberately dismissed the legitimate demands and grievances of these conscientious activists and strove to put them through a political trial.
Nevertheless, not everything was lost with the legal pronouncement. The Hong Kong Free Press, an online newspaper, did a great service by translating the incredibly moving testimonies given by these protesters into English.
Of all the testimonies, the one delivered by Reverend Chu Yiu-ming (朱耀明) stood out as the most insightful account when he situated his decades-long struggle for the underdogs in the larger history of China’s search for democracy.
Chu is not a conventional pastor, exalting the spiritual at the expense of the material. A renowned Baptist minister and pro-democracy activist, he once led a humble congregation in the working-class district of Chai Wan on Hong Kong Island.
Besides campaigning for the poor, he was involved in rescuing Chinese student and worker activists after the brutal suppression of the Tiananmen pro-democracy movement in Beijing in June 1989. His dedication and commitment to peace and justice gained many plaudits from across the local political spectrum.
As with faith communities elsewhere in times of crisis, the Hong Kong Christians never fully submitted themselves to the worldly authorities. Many conscientious believers such as Chu led the way in articulating popular demands for freedom and democracy as they drew on their theological convictions to explain these universal values to the public. They refused to endorse the autocratic “status quo” when, by conventional expectations of self-interest, they should have done so.
Yet, new realities forced local Catholics and Protestants to re-evaluate their relationship with the state. Since the Umbrella protests, the fast-changing political climate had set the agenda for the churches. Many Christians confronted a dilemma, torn between acting out their faith in the public square and fencing themselves against the need to pursue civic engagement.
Despite its conservative outlook, Christian pietism instilled a culture of dissent and a glimpse of hope among the believers. In a crisis moment, local Christians embraced political reflection and civic engagement, forging solidarity with other civic groups in prodemocracy struggle. Such encounters transcended the separations between sacred and profane, individual and social.
The battle for freedom and democracy in Hong Kong is now being fought in the courthouse and the streets, where the meaning of democratic localism are defined by participating demonstrators.
By identifying and suffering with the disenfranchised majority of the territory’s population, Chu and his comrades showed everyone a way forward on how to reconcile their truthful convictions with universal values and norms, thereby liberating themselves from the perpetual cycle of fear, indifference and apathy. Perhaps this was the most hopeful message of this political trial.
Joseph Tse-Hei Lee is professor of history at Pace University in New York City.
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
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
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath