Hong Kong’s rare rejection of a UK journalist’s visa was about far more than the fringe political ideology he was accused of promoting. The move has been viewed as the latest escalation in a methodical campaign to tame dissent in the former British colony.
The push, which took shape after the Occupy Central movement locked down swaths of the territory four years ago, has seen the Beijing-backed government expand the zone of national security threats to include pro-independence activists and journalists who give them a platform.
The ultimate goal, say China’s supporters and critics, is passage of long-dormant legislation giving Hong Kong expansive powers to limit speech, protest and the activities of foreign groups.
Calls to enact the legislation — known as Article 23, for the section of local law requiring its passage — have reached their loudest level since 2003, when half a million protesters persuaded the government to abandon its last attempt.
The day after the Foreign Correspondents’ Club (FCC) hosted a pro-independence activist’s speech in August, China’s Hong Kong Liaison Office Director Zhang Xiaoming (張曉明), blamed “Hong Kong’s inadequacies in protecting national security.”
After that, the government approved an unprecedented ban against activist Andy Chan’s (陳浩天) Hong Kong National Party.
The territory also took the unusual step of denying a work visa renewal to Financial Times journalist Victor Mallet, who presided over Chan’s talk as the FCC’s acting president.
On Tuesday, Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam (林鄭月娥) dismissed as “pure speculation” efforts to link the visa decision to Chan’s address.
The incidents have fanned concern that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — emboldened by economic might and political turmoil in the West — is less committed to Hong Kong’s colonial-era guarantees of free speech, independent courts and capitalist markets.
They come amid international criticism over Xi’s efforts to consolidate power on the mainland, including jailing rights lawyers, holding tens of thousands of ethnic Uighurs in “re-education camps” and expanding online censorship.
The US and UK governments, as well as organizations representing almost 1,400 multinational companies with regional headquarters in Hong Kong, have demanded an explanation for Mallet’s visa denial.
UK Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt on Tuesday said he was “very concerned” about the move, which he could “only conclude is politically motivated.”
“These incidents cannot be brushed off as individual, isolated events every time they happen,” the American Chamber of Commerce, the largest international business chamber in Hong Kong, said in a statement on Monday. “Any efforts to curtail press freedom in Hong Kong could damage Hong Kong’s competitiveness as a leading financial and trading center.”
The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ local office hit back at such criticism, saying in a statement on Saturday that Beijing “firmly supports” the Hong Kong’s government’s handling of visa issues.
“No foreign country has any right to interfere,” it said.
The controversy has put more pressure on Lam to rein in political dissent that has endured under China’s handover agreement with the UK.
In her policy address on Wednesday she repeated her line that she wants “to create a favorable social environment” before advancing divisive legislation such as Article 23. Still, she pledged to continue using existing laws to quash threats to national security.
“I will listen to these views earnestly and explore ways to enable the Hong Kong society to respond positively to this constitutional requirement,” Lam said.
During a visit last year to mark 20 years of Chinese rule and swear Lam into office, Xi warned that challenges to Beijing’s authority would not be tolerated.
Lam’s predecessor and former boss, Leung Chun-ying (梁振英), has re-emerged in recent weeks to call for revocation of the FCC’s government lease over Chan’s speech, comparing it to promoting “racism, antisemitism or Nazism.”
“There is a growing degree of pressure from the radical left on Article 23 and we are starting to wonder if Carrie can really hold on to her position on this matter,” said Alvin Yeung (楊岳橋), leader of the opposition Civic Party.
“No one has a crystal ball, but subject to what we have seen, those freedoms are under challenge,” he said.
China has demonstrated a willingness to use existing powers to crack down on its opponents in Hong Kong, even without passing Article 23. In recent years, tycoons and booksellers who published works critical of the Chinese Communist Party have disappeared from Hong Kong’s streets only to show up in police custody in China — an apparent violation of restrictions on national law enforcement operating locally.
After pro-independence activists were involved in a 2016 riot that left scores of police officers injured, the government seized on the public backlash.
Officials such as China’s local legal director Wang Zhenmin (王振民) argued that publicly advocating pro-independence views would be a violation of Hong Kong’s Basic Law.
After the government used similar arguments to ban some radical candidates from seeking seats in the Legislative Council in 2016, Leung led a legal fight to oust those who were elected to the body.
The Chinese National People’s Congress, exercised a rarely used power to interpret the territory’s law, paving the way for courts to remove two would-be lawmakers who had insulted the country during their oaths of office.
Chan’s party? It was banned using a colonial-era law that requires all social groups and organizations to register with the police.
To many in Hong Kong, the government’s message was clear: Pass national security legislation or we will use the tools we have.
“When there were the first attempts to legislate Article 23, we didn’t see any groups coming out to openly advocate for Hong Kong independence,” said Holden Chow (周浩鼎), vice chairman of the largest pro-Beijing party, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong.
“Now, we really see the existence of these sorts of organizations, so I would say we have an imminent threat and the need to protect our national security,” he said.
Taiwan’s fall would be “a disaster for American interests,” US President Donald Trump’s nominee for undersecretary of defense for policy Elbridge Colby said at his Senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday last week, as he warned of the “dramatic deterioration of military balance” in the western Pacific. The Republic of China (Taiwan) is indeed facing a unique and acute threat from the Chinese Communist Party’s rising military adventurism, which is why Taiwan has been bolstering its defenses. As US Senator Tom Cotton rightly pointed out in the same hearing, “[although] Taiwan’s defense spending is still inadequate ... [it] has been trending upwards
There is nothing the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) could do to stop the tsunami-like mass recall campaign. KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) reportedly said the party does not exclude the option of conditionally proposing a no-confidence vote against the premier, which the party later denied. Did an “actuary” like Chu finally come around to thinking it should get tough with the ruling party? The KMT says the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is leading a minority government with only a 40 percent share of the vote. It has said that the DPP is out of touch with the electorate, has proposed a bloated
In an eloquently written piece published on Sunday, French-Taiwanese education and policy consultant Ninon Godefroy presents an interesting take on the Taiwanese character, as viewed from the eyes of an — at least partial — outsider. She muses that the non-assuming and quiet efficiency of a particularly Taiwanese approach to life and work is behind the global success stories of two very different Taiwanese institutions: Din Tai Fung and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). Godefroy said that it is this “humble” approach that endears the nation to visitors, over and above any big ticket attractions that other countries may have
A media report has suggested that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) was considering initiating a vote of no confidence in Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) in a bid to “bring down the Cabinet.” The KMT has denied that this topic was ever discussed. Why might such a move have even be considered? It would have been absurd if it had seen the light of day — potentially leading to a mass loss of legislative seats for the KMT even without the recall petitions already under way. Today the second phase of the recall movement is to begin — which has
RSS