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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS