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.
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS