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
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
The arrest in France of Telegram founder and CEO Pavel Durov has brought into sharp focus one of the major conflicts of our age. On one hand, we want privacy in our digital lives, which is why we like the kind of end-to-end encryption Telegram promises. On the other, we want the government to be able to stamp out repugnant online activities — such as child pornography or terrorist plotting. The reality is that we cannot have our cake and eat it, too. Durov last month was charged with complicity in crimes taking place on the app, including distributing child pornography,
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers
RSS