Hong Kongers used to criticize the Chinese Communist Party for its “fake elections” and its staged meetings, at which decisions made in advance got passed “unanimously.”
They also criticized Iran’s elections, where potential candidates were screened beforehand by committees that decided applicants’ eligibility to stand for election.
Such practices run contrary to the principles of universal and equal suffrage.
Who would have thought that elections in Hong Kong would become even more distorted than those in Iran, with aspiring candidates being disqualified for no reason?
The UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that freedom from fear is a basic right for everyone, but Hong Kongers worry about whether the government will disqualify candidates again and again.
How can an election in which people are not free from fear meet the standards of universal and equal suffrage?
Absurdly, the Hong Kong Electoral Affairs Commission has not explained why it “cannot accept” the word of potential candidates.
If the commission today says that it “cannot accept” the word of a candidate who at some time in the past signed a statement supporting self-determination for Hong Kong, who is to say that tomorrow it will not say the same about candidates who have never signed such a document?
If that happens, the only candidates to choose from would be those meeting the government’s definition of being patriotic and loving Hong Kong.
Such a scenario might be deemed improbable, but it is by no means impossible.
It was unimaginable a few years ago that the Hong Kong government would reach the point of disqualifying potential candidates for no reason — the situation is becoming increasingly ridiculous.
The Hong Kong government has said that disqualifying candidates does not amount to depriving them of their political rights for the rest of their lives.
It said that when, one day, the government accepts that they have mended their ways, they can be requalified to stand as candidates.
However, this claim is absurd.
Hong Kong’s Basic Law protects the equal eligibility of all permanent residents to stand for election, but when Legislative Council elections were held in 2016, this did not stop the government from arbitrarily adding the step of requiring potential candidates to sign a declaration stating that they uphold the People’s Republic of China (PRC).
Absurdly, even if a potential candidate signs the declaration, the returning officer has the power not to accept it, and candidates without a signed declaration are not automatically deemed to not uphold the PRC and disqualified.
This makes it clear that the declaration is just a superfluous pretext cooked up by the government for disqualifying anyone that it wants to.
Hong Kong has become a society ruled not by law, but by governmental whim.
If it says a person can be a candidate, they can, and if it says they cannot, then they cannot. The “declarations” and “non-acceptances” are mere pretexts for those in power to act as they wish.
Hong Kongers have to go along with whatever the government says.
They need no longer ask for whom the bell tolls — it tolls for all of them. Today’s Hong Kong is no longer the Hong Kong of before. It has returned to the days of authoritarianism, and the “ordinary happiness” that Hong Kongers desire is more out of reach than ever.
Matthew Wan is a commentator in Hong Kong.
Translated by Julian Clegg
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