Hong Kong’s Legislative Council on Thursday last week vetoed an electoral reform package set to change the rules for Hong Kong’s 2017 chief executive election. The results of the council’s vote illustrate the many restrictions on the chief executive election, that there is no universal suffrage, and that this situation is unacceptable to Hong Kongers.
However, the “Umbrella movement” — a protest against the political reform policy that continued for two months last year and captured worldwide attention, with students going on strike and the occupation of Central and other districts — was unable to make authorities in Beijing concede to their demands. Hong Kong is facing a long uphill battle to make democratic reforms a reality.
The main reason the electoral reform proposal was unacceptable to Hong Kongers is because Beijing does not allow them to decide their own political fate. China’s government treats Chinese that way and accords Hong Kongers the same treatment. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is anti-democratic: There is no “one country, two systems,” but rather a “one-size-fits-all” system. China will not allow democracy, and its special administrative regions — Hong Kong and Macau — should not presume that they are exceptions.
The issue of electoral reform originated during the handover of Hong Kong to China, with the Basic Law that came into effect in 1997. According to the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s elections should involve a system where a broadly representative nomination committee selects chief executive candidates who are then voted on by the people of Hong Kong, with Beijing having final veto rights.
Five years ago, China’s National People’s Congress announced that in 2017, the chief executive would be elected by universal suffrage. However, Beijing is unwilling to allow the election to go ahead without interference, and in June last year, it issued a white paper that made it clear that it would play a dominant role in Hong Kong’s affairs.
In August last year, China set up barriers to prevent universal suffrage, and attempted to screen candidates and control the nomination committee to manipulate the election and avoid the possibility of someone unfavorable to Beijing being elected chief executive.
This is the focus of the controversy caused by the electoral reform proposal. Supporters of the proposal, including the Hong Kong government, say that allowing universal suffrage is a step forward compared with the previous system, in which the chief executive was appointed by Beijing, and the current system, in which a 1,200-member election committee composed of four big sectors elects the chief executive in indirect voting.
To many Hong Kongers, although space for free elections has been limited, having a ballot in one’s hand is better than none at all, and progress toward universal suffrage is better than stagnation.
However, as far as the opposition is concerned, the electoral reform plan supported by Beijing is false democracy that does not give Hong Kong residents a genuine right to vote. Moreover, taking a long-term perspective on the electoral system, the reform plan reflects the Beijing authorities’ restriction of political rights in Hong Kong by interfering with the election process. In particular, the special status that Hong Kong enjoys under the “one country, two systems” policy is set to expire in 2047, and insightful people in Hong Kong are now striving to achieve what student Joshua Wong (黃之鋒), an Umbrella movement leader, described as “establishing a system that ensures the rights of Hong Kong after that date” and ensuring that “democracy is not a momentary thing.”
With the reform proposal having been vetoed, it is likely that the Chinese authorities will take a unified stance, blaming the legislators who voted against the proposal for there not being a universal election in two years’ time and claiming that “a minority of people hinder Hong Kong’s progress toward democracy.”
Hong Kong Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying (梁振英) said that the territory’s government plans to focus on residents’ economic livelihood and does not even know how to bring up the “other” reform — dual universal suffrage — that would bring universal suffrage to the Legislative Council elections.
Judging from these reactions, Beijing is obviously ignoring the fact that Hong Kong residents want to be their own masters and their calls for reform. In the eyes of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and other Chinese leaders, calls for free elections, freedom of the press and other civil rights are strongly influenced by “external forces,” which threaten the political power of the CCP and must be forcefully prevented.
Thus, the so-called “one country, two systems,” the idea that “Hong Kong people should run Hong Kong,” and have “a high degree of autonomy” are all mere catchphrases aimed at fooling Hong Kongers and are unlikely to be implemented. This is coming from a “People’s republic” that still does not allow its own people to run the nation and has locked up a Nobel Peace Prize winner in a dark prison cell.
The many obstacles that Hong Kongers have encountered in their struggle for true universal suffrage highlights how China’s overbearing attitude has intensified as the nation becomes an economic and political powerhouse. It wants total control over universal suffrage in Hong Kong and does not care if that means going back on the “one country, two systems” promise. Civil freedoms and rights such as to the Internet, news media, freedom of expression and religion would be fully suppressed if needs be to promote a domestic “harmonious society.”
As for dealing with Taiwan, talk about “peaceful development” is sufficient to conceal a tougher approach China would happily adopt if necessary.
President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) talk about cross-strait relations being the most peaceful and stable that they have been in 66 years is an illusion that could be destroyed the second Taiwan does not do as its told.
Faced with a central government like China’s, democracy cannot just fall from the sky. Eight months ago, the Umbrella movement showed Hong Kongers that they must save the territory on their own. The struggle for democratic reform and social justice, and to remain masters of their own fate requires mobilization of civil society.
This is the only way to gain the dignity that comes from true citizenship and to fight the possibility of Hong Kong coming under the control of an authoritarian regime. Taiwanese watching these events unfold should be vigilant.
Translated by Zane Kheir
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS