The Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China on Wednesday last week ruled that any lawmaker elected to Hong Kong’s Legislative Council (LegCo) who “supports Hong Kong independence, rejects the Chinese government’s governing authority over Hong Kong, courts foreign interference in the internal governance of Hong Kong or engages in other action or behavior that harms national security” would be removed from office.
Minutes after Beijing’s announcement, officials in Hong Kong ejected four lawmakers from the LegCo: Dennis Kwok (郭榮鏗), Kwok Ka-ki (郭家麒), Kenneth Leung (梁繼昌) and Alvin Yeung (楊岳橋), all of whom are members of the pro-democracy Civic Party.
At a news conference later that day, Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam (林鄭月娥) claimed that the expulsions were “legal, reasonable and constitutional.”
The day after, LegCo pan-democratic camp convener and Democratic Party chairman Wu Chi-wai (胡志偉), and 14 other pro-democracy lawmakers resigned from the legislature.
The Democratic Party issued a statement criticizing Beijing’s resolution and said that the move is the final death knell for “one country, two systems,” and opens the door for the direct insertion of legislation and resolutions from the mainland.
The statement ended with the message that Hong Kongers would stand and fall together, and would meet again on the streets.
The matter raises three issues:
First, the reason for the passing of the resolution — and Hong Kong National People’s Congress Standing Committee member Tam Yiu-chung’s (譚耀宗) intervention prior to its announcement — was because the pan-democratic camp within the LegCo had been delivering long-winded speeches, prolonging the voting process and employing other filibustering tactics to obstruct the legislative process. This led Beijing to impose controversial national security legislation on Hong Kong, which enabled it to remove the four legislators. Beijing did this to set an example to other Hong Kong lawmakers.
However, last week’s ruling not only breached normal legal procedure in Hong Kong and bypassed the judicial review process, it also demonstrated that the executive, after obtaining the consent of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) Central Committee, can bypass the checks and balances of legislative and judicial power, effectively eliminating dissent.
Second, after the removal and mass resignation of pan-democratic camp legislators, the LegCo is now left with 41 pro-Beijing lawmakers and only two non-establishment members.
Many controversial motions of the past, such as the Sha Tin to Central Link MTR expansion, and other wasteful and inefficient projects, or the political reform bill pushed by the CCP, are no longer subject to proper scrutiny by a hollowed LegCo. It has become nothing more than a “rubber stamp” parliament of the CCP and the Hong Kong executive.
Third, following the resignations and removals, Tam and the CCP’s Hong Kong Liaison Office have stated that if the actions of Hong Kong’s public representatives could be interpreted as a “refusal to recognize the ruling authority of China’s government,” then they might have breached the Standing Committee’s resolution and could forfeit their eligibility to stand for election. This would completely stifle dissent within Hong Kong politics.
It is under these extremely trying circumstances that the international and parliamentary-level battles to defend Hong Kong’s freedoms continue to be assaulted by Beijing through a combination of piecemeal encroachment and wholesale annexation. Potential street protests would also face the threat of police violence and could fall foul of numerous draconian articles introduced under Beijing’s new National Security Law.
As Hong Kongers desperately fight to save their democratic freedoms, Hong Kong is on the brink of a crisis. Separated from Hong Kong by nothing more than water, Taiwanese must cherish their precious democratic values and act now to support Hong Kongers.
God save Hong Kong.
Samuel Tung is a university student.
Translated by Edward Jones
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
RSS