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
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS