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.
In a stark reminder of China’s persistent territorial overreach, Pema Wangjom Thongdok, a woman from Arunachal Pradesh holding an Indian passport, was detained for 18 hours at Shanghai Pudong Airport on Nov. 24 last year. Chinese immigration officials allegedly informed her that her passport was “invalid” because she was “Chinese,” refusing to recognize her Indian citizenship and claiming Arunachal Pradesh as part of South Tibet. Officials had insisted that Thongdok, an Indian-origin UK resident traveling for a conference, was not Indian despite her valid documents. India lodged a strong diplomatic protest, summoning the Chinese charge d’affaires in Delhi and demanding
In the past 72 hours, US Senators Roger Wicker, Dan Sullivan and Ruben Gallego took to social media to publicly rebuke the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) over the defense budget. I understand that Taiwan’s head is on the chopping block, and the urgency of its security situation cannot be overstated. However, the comments from Wicker, Sullivan and Gallego suggest they have fallen victim to a sophisticated disinformation campaign orchestrated by an administration in Taipei that treats national security as a partisan weapon. The narrative fed to our allies claims the opposition is slashing the defense budget to kowtow to the Chinese
In a Taipei Times editorial published almost three years ago (“Macron goes off-piste,” April 13, 2023, page 8), French President Emmanuel Macron was criticized for comments he made immediately after meeting Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing. Macron had spoken of the need for his country to find a path on Chinese foreign policy no longer aligned with that of the US, saying that continuing to follow the US agenda would sacrifice the EU’s strategic autonomy. At the time, Macron was criticized for gifting Xi a PR coup, and the editorial said that he had been “persuaded to run
The wrap-up press event on Feb. 1 for the new local period suspense film Murder of the Century (世紀血案), adapted from the true story of the Lin family murders (林家血案) in 1980, has sparked waves of condemnation in the past week, as well as a boycott. The film is based on the shocking, unsolved murders that occurred at then-imprisoned provincial councilor and democracy advocate Lin I-hsiung’s (林義雄) residence on Feb. 28, 1980, while Lin was detained for his participation in the Formosa Incident, in which police and protesters clashed during a pro-democracy rally in Kaohsiung organized by Formosa Magazine on Dec.
RSS