A high voter turnout on Sunday at the Hong Kong district council elections was of great symbolic importance. Two new political trends can be discerned from this first manifestation of public sentiment since last year’s “Umbrella movement” protests.
First, Hong Kongers are in a new political normal after the watershed district elections. Although councilors serve as policy advisers to the government and exercise little power in the decisionmaking process, the victory of several young Umbrella movement activists over pro-Beijing politicians represents a milestone in the territory’s struggle for democracy.
In the post-1997 decades, Hong Kongers have fiercely debated the implementation of universal suffrage toward the election of the territory’s chief executive and legislators.
However, Beijing has only transferred political authority to its handpicked officials, who lack legitimacy in the eyes of the public.
Without an appealing ideology, it has become increasingly difficult for Beijing and its officials to win the hearts and minds of Hong Kongers.
Second, the Umbrella movement has facilitated a rapid transformation of Hong Kong’s collective identity from a post-colonial territory into a mature civil society, expressing a strong desire for democratic governance.
One unintended consequence of last year’s territory-wide protests is the rise of contentious politics.
Since the 1997 handover of Hong Kong’s sovereignty to China, young people have been keenly aware of living and working in an environment different from the British colonial era.
Concerned about the territory’s well-being, they have engaged in a series of grassroots campaigns to protect historical heritages, defend human rights and oppose ideological indoctrination in the public school system.
Worried about the marginalization of Hong Kong by China, young people are seeking new avenues for political and social mobility.
Against this backdrop, the Umbrella movement activists are directly confronting autocratic rulers.
They have not only mastered the skills of democratic electioneering and defeated pro-Beijing politicians, but also created new coalitions with other pro-democracy groups to resist Beijing’s agenda of merging Hong Kong with China in 2047.
Evidently, China is evaluating the electoral outcomes and the effects on its “one country, two systems” policy.
After all, Hong Kong is still a vibrant civil society, with freely organized political parties, a free press and an independent judiciary.
Unless Beijing gets to grips with the new public sentiment and makes concessions, it will be extremely difficult to assert an effective rule in an open and diverse society.
Joseph Tse-Hei Lee is a professor of history and co-director of the bachelors’ program in Global Asia Studies at Pace University in New York.
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS