On June 9, Hong Kong residents first demonstrated against a bill that would allow extradition to China. Since then, Hong Kongers have organized marches weekly, with attendance numbering from the hundreds of thousands to as many as 2 million. The scale of the marches, as well as the rough tactics of the police, has shocked the world.
The tactics of protesters and police have changed. Protesters have switched from large-scale marches to smaller protests in multiple locations.
Last month in Yuen Long District, a white-shirted mob savagely attacked protesters at several locations as they returned from a march, with video footage showing them dishing out indiscriminate violence, including upon pregnant women and journalists. Not only were the police slow to respond to calls for help, even ambulances took a long time to arrive.
A “traffic jam protest,” which urged drivers to operate vehicles at slower “safe speeds” in seven areas, was held on Tuesday.
Protest activities have thus far been confined to a show of civic power, but, in a worrying development, civil servants on Friday held a territory-wide rally.
Hong Kong’s civil servants are a restrained and conservative group. They might protest over pay or benefit issues, but rarely over legal or political ones.
However, they took to the streets because internal channels for registering dissatisfaction have been suspended with Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam (林鄭月娥) a lame duck. Although China has strongly backed Lam, it has hinted that this is only for the short term.
Beijing keeps referring to the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Garrisoning the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, which says that the Standing Committee of the Chinese National People’s Congress is authorized to dispatch the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to Hong Kong to defend it, resist invasion, provide disaster assistance or restore public order in one of three scenarios: following a declaration of a state of war (Article 6); if turmoil endangers national unity or security, and is beyond the control of the Hong Kong government (Article 6); if the chief executive asks the central government for assistance from the Hong Kong Garrison to maintain public order or provide disaster relief (Article 14).
At a July 29 news conference convened by the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, a Chinese official said that the situation in Hong Kong had tested a red line of the territory’s “one country, two systems” model, apparently paving the way for military involvement in accordance with the second scenario.
There is precedent for this: On Aug. 25, 2017, the Chinese government authorized the Macau Garrison to provide emergency relief in the aftermath of Typhoon Hato.
Deploying troops from the Hong Kong Garrison based on Article 14 would effectively implement military rule. As Article 29 says that “the Hong Kong Garrison shall perform its duties in accordance with the provisions of the national laws that the Central People’s Government decides to apply in the region,” the “one country, two systems” model would be abolished.
What would happen in the territory would be decided by the Standing Committee, not the Hong Kong Legislative Council.
If this were to happen, Hong Kong would be changed forever. Beijing should think carefully before opening this can of worms.
HoonTing is a freelance writer.
Translated by Edward Jones
Since the end of the Cold War, the US-China espionage battle has arguably become the largest on Earth. Spying on China is vital for the US, as China’s growing military and technological capabilities pose direct challenges to its interests, especially in defending Taiwan and maintaining security in the Indo-Pacific. Intelligence gathering helps the US counter Chinese aggression, stay ahead of threats and safeguard not only its own security, but also the stability of global trade routes. Unchecked Chinese expansion could destabilize the region and have far-reaching global consequences. In recent years, spying on China has become increasingly difficult for the US
Lately, China has been inviting Taiwanese influencers to travel to China’s Xinjiang region to make films, weaving a “beautiful Xinjiang” narrative as an antidote to the international community’s criticisms by creating a Potemkin village where nothing is awry. Such manipulations appear harmless — even compelling enough for people to go there — but peeling back the shiny veneer reveals something more insidious, something that is hard to ignore. These films are not only meant to promote tourism, but also harbor a deeper level of political intentions. Xinjiang — a region of China continuously listed in global human rights reports —
The annual summit of East Asia and other events around the ASEAN summit in October and November every year have become the most important gathering of leaders in the Indo-Pacific region. This year, as Laos is the chair of ASEAN, it was privileged to host all of the ministerial and summit meetings associated with ASEAN. Besides the main summit, this included the high-profile East Asia Summit, ASEAN summits with its dialogue partners and the ASEAN Plus Three Summit with China, Japan and South Korea. The events and what happens around them have changed over the past 15 years from a US-supported, ASEAN-led
To the dismay of the Chinese propaganda machine, President William Lai (賴清德) has been mounting an information offensive through his speeches. No longer are Taiwanese content with passively reacting to China’s encroachment in the international window of discourse, but Taiwan is now setting the tone and pace of conversation. Last month, Lai’s statement that “If China wants Taiwan it should also take back land from Russia” made international headlines, pointing out the duplicity of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) revanchism. History shows that the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) stance on regional territorial disputes has not been consistent. The early CCP
RSS