While the international media is focused on the global outbreak of COVID-19, little attention has been given to the worsening internal security situation in Hong Kong.
The arrests on Friday last week of Hong Kong’s high-profile media tycoon Jimmy Lai (黎智英) and two pro-democracy politicians on charges of illegal assembly has had a chilling effect on legitimate forms of political expression in the territory, and could stifle public debate on issues critical of Beijing.
Although there are signs that the internal security environment is deteriorating, Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam’s (林鄭月娥) regime appears to have survived a widespread financial downturn that could have triggered a terminal legitimacy crisis at a time when China’s economic slowdown is badly affecting the territory.
Flush with cash accumulated from local taxpayers during a decades-long boom, she has invested heavily in policing and control programs, buying political loyalty from government employees and muscling her way through crisis after crisis.
Imposing a rule of fear and brutality might hold public pressure at bay, but it causes institutional atrophy, social instability and economic decline.
Political dysfunction has spread quickly and concertedly at all levels of the local government bureaucracy.
The coronavirus threat to the territory is not worse than the systematic epidemic of police corruption and cruelty.
Previously known as “Asia’s finest,” Hong Kong’s police force has degenerated into Asia’s worst and shameful because of its deliberate use of abusive and deadly violence against peaceful demonstrators since last spring.
This inhumane strategy is poorly suited to the latest governance crisis, as Hong Kong finds itself in a full-scale conflict with China, in which each side challenges the other not just because of what they do, but also because of what they are and what values they represent.
On the surface, this competition involves the use of a great deal of force by the Lam administration, which constantly sends in riot police to silence critics, disperse peaceful demonstrations, and even conduct forced disappearances and extrajudicial killings.
Beneath this confrontation is a changing political balance of power. The retrenchment of civil society could concede victory to the regime, and make it harder to maintain a broad cross-sectional alliance.
This explains why Hong Kongers routinely disrupt the Lam regime’s governing efforts. Some conscientious consumers withhold their economic power by boycotting pro-Beijing businesses, while others withhold their labor through sabotage, desertion and strikes.
These small protests exemplify a collective response to the deteriorating conditions and exploitative oppression that people see around them. Even though these localized resistance efforts cannot bring down the regime, let alone produce any serious transformative result, they manifest growing anti-communist and anti-authoritarian sentiment from all levels of society.
The frequent occurrences of such episodic protests indicates how frustrated, disillusioned and skeptical people feel about Hong Kong’s arrogant and incompetent officials, and how determined they are to oppose them.
Inspired by the 228 Incident, Hong Kongers are following in the footsteps of Taiwanese by organizing regular, sporadic and peaceful rallies to raise morale and show solidarity among opposition groups.
In light of a deadly police attack on passengers inside the Prince Edward subway station in August last year, last weekend’s protests in Mong Kok have used commemoration as a vehicle for political mobilization and grassroots resistance.
The activists have sought to push the territory toward political consciousness, posing challenges to the regime regarding law and order, which has been handicapped by months of resistance, and is incapable of stabilizing the situation on the ground.
Pushing back against such a distasteful government that brutalizes civilians has become a new consensus in Hong Kong. The efficacy of popular resistance requires better coordination efforts among diverse civic sectors and international supporters.
After all, authoritarian states that rule by fear also rule in fear; they are vulnerable to threats and instabilities that arise from within, especially defections from within the upper elite.
Winning global support for the pro-democracy cause is as important as consolidating internal unity. Perhaps Hong Kongers should participate in more lobbying efforts to urge Washington to implement the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, reassessing the territory’s special bilateral relations with the US.
They should also appeal to US allies and Taiwan to employ the Global Magnitsky Act, which sanctions foreign officials involved in human rights violations. Lam, her Cabinet ministers and police commanders are obvious candidates for such sanctions.
Joseph Tse-hei Lee is professor of history at Pace University in New York City.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS