The introduction of emergency powers in Hong Kong show that embattled Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam (林鄭月娥) has listened to at least one of the protesters’ cries: jia you (come on, 加油).
Not only does the new law banning face masks at public gatherings curtail Hong Kongers’ precious right to protest, but the move looks likely to douse an already fiery situation with generous lashings of gasoline.
Over the past few months, the scenes from Hong Kong beamed around the world have defied the territory’s traditional image as a straight-laced commerce hub. Not that this stereotype had much truth to it.
As readers of Antony Dapiran’s new book City of Protest will know, Hong Kongers have always been a political bunch. Yet the fallout from an extradition bill that was controversially proposed earlier this year has ushered in a new era of unrest.
The failure of peaceful protest encouraged many in the pro-democracy movement to turn to civil disobedience, and following the failure of these tactics, along with a heavy handed police response, guerrilla-style attacks on property have sporadically begun.
Shops and metro stations have been damaged, while some protesters have even taken to fighting back against the police.
You would have to go back to the 1967 Maoist-inspired riots to find a parallel with what Hong Kong is witnessing now.
Of course, it was those events, more than 50 years ago, that saw similar emergency powers invoked by the then-British colonial administration.
The big difference today is that those demonstrating are acting out of a deep desire to live in a democracy, rather than on a cult leader’s crazed calls for a cultural revolution. Now, the tools of the totalitarians occupy the government offices of Hong Kong, not its streets.
The new restriction introduced by the chief executive might seem minor. For some sitting comfortably in a far-off liberal democracy, the banning of face coverings might even seem reasonable.
Yet hoods, goggles and masks provide vital protection for those on the streets, including the vast majority of peaceful protesters. These items give them physical protection from the police who have been trigger-happy, firing tear gas canisters at crowds.
They also help protect their identities. Remember, it is Beijing and their local lackeys who these demonstrators are up against; showing their faces in public risks their safety and that of their families.
More worrying still, this could well be the start of even more repressive measures, as a number of human rights organizations have speculated.
Under the Emergency Regulations Ordinance, the chief executive can censor the media, seize property and give the police greater powers to arrest, deport and detain. Lam has not ruled out taking further action.
If the past few months have taught us anything, it is that this lady’s not for turning. Or rather, her masters back in Beijing have jammed the steering wheel leaving her no choice but to keep tapping on the accelerator.
This uncompromising strategy has not worked so far and, as the thousands rallying to defy the mask ban would indicate, will not work in the future. The crisis in Hong Kong looks set to rumble on.
Gray Sergeant is a British writer focusing on East Asian politics.
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Father’s Day, as celebrated around the world, has its roots in the early 20th century US. In 1910, the state of Washington marked the world’s first official Father’s Day. Later, in 1972, then-US president Richard Nixon signed a proclamation establishing the third Sunday of June as a national holiday honoring fathers. Many countries have since followed suit, adopting the same date. In Taiwan, the celebration takes a different form — both in timing and meaning. Taiwan’s Father’s Day falls on Aug. 8, a date chosen not for historical events, but for the beauty of language. In Mandarin, “eight eight” is pronounced
US President Donald Trump’s alleged request that Taiwanese President William Lai (賴清德) not stop in New York while traveling to three of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, after his administration also rescheduled a visit to Washington by the minister of national defense, sets an unwise precedent and risks locking the US into a trajectory of either direct conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or capitulation to it over Taiwan. Taiwanese authorities have said that no plans to request a stopover in the US had been submitted to Washington, but Trump shared a direct call with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平)
It is difficult to think of an issue that has monopolized political commentary as intensely as the recall movement and the autopsy of the July 26 failures. These commentaries have come from diverse sources within Taiwan and abroad, from local Taiwanese members of the public and academics, foreign academics resident in Taiwan, and overseas Taiwanese working in US universities. There is a lack of consensus that Taiwan’s democracy is either dying in ashes or has become a phoenix rising from the ashes, nurtured into existence by civic groups and rational voters. There are narratives of extreme polarization and an alarming
RSS