Hong Kong’s first “revamped” district council elections — to use a term favored by Hong Kong media — took place on Dec. 10. The next day, the territory’s government announced that more than 1.19 million of its 4.33 million registered electors had cast their ballots.
This turnout of just 27.5 percent is the lowest since Hong Kong returned to Chinese sovereignty in 1997. In comparison, the turnout in the previous district council elections, held in 2019 amid anti-extradition protests, saw a record-high turnout of 71 percent. Observers think the shift from voters’ enthusiastic participation in 2019 to political apathy this time highlights their refusal to take part in a bogus election.
That those standing for election were all recognized by Beijing as “patriots” meant it would make no difference which of them were elected. It is plain to see that the so-called “revamping” was really a purge. This is the result that could be expected from a fake democracy with a high degree of meddling by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
Unlike the Hong Kong Legislative Council, which is responsible for formulating and enacting the ordinances and laws of the special administrative region and for scrutinizing its budget, district councils are local bodies that advise the government about ordinary people’s daily affairs. Although they have limited power and are only advisory bodies, their proximity to ordinary people makes them relatively reflective of public opinion.
In the previous district council elections, the pro-democracy parties won a resounding victory, propelled by the momentum of widespread protests against a proposed legal amendment that would have allowed extradition from Hong Kong to other parts of China, while the pro-establishment or pro-Beijing parties suffered a heavy defeat. In those elections, pro-democracy candidates won 388 directly elected seats, or 85.9 percent of the total, while pro-establishment candidates only won 59 such seats, or 13 percent.
This result made the CCP wary of democracy, so this time it directly intervened. Its measures included implementing Hong Kong’s National Security Law and amending the systems for electing members of the Legislative Council and the district councils, thus shifting from the slogan of “Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong” to the new reality of “patriots administering Hong Kong.”
Furthermore, there is a Candidate Eligibility Review Committee to decide who is or is not a patriot. All these changes work in favor of pro-establishment parties, but that is not all. The total number of council seats in these district council elections has been reduced from 479 to 470, of which the number of directly elected seats has been sharply cut from 450 to 88.
While going to great lengths to change the rules of the game, the authorities have not offered any reasonable explanation for doing so. The end result has been district council elections without the participation of any pro-democracy parties, which unsurprisingly produced a “sweeping victory” for the pro-establishment camp. This sham election has become an international joke.
Pro-establishment parties in Hong Kong have an advantage in resources thanks to being supported by Beijing, so they already had a certain strength in grassroots organizations and district councils. However, the CCP’s blatant interference caused these parties to lose their legitimacy in managing local affairs. The Hong Kong government knew that denying democracy would have the opposite effect of what was intended — namely that Hong Kongers, not daring to voice their anger, would resist by turning out in low numbers. Thus, in the build-up to the elections, the authorities did everything they could to improve turnout. This continued through polling day, when voting was supposed to end at 10:30pm, but was extended until midnight, supposedly due to a glitch in the electronic voter registration system.
A week before the election, Chinese Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office Director Xia Baolong (夏寶龍) met with leading executives of Cathay Pacific’s parent company, Swire Pacific, to convey his wish that it continue firmly supporting China’s policy of “one country, two systems.” For the first time, Cathay Pacific provided ticket discounts for people returning from China to Hong Kong to vote. Hong Kong media revealed that these discounted tickets were in the hands of pro-Beijing organizations, thus favoring the mobilization of certain voters.
Such election interference is by no means unfamiliar to Taiwanese. Less than a month from now, Taiwanese voters are to cast their ballots in the presidential and legislative elections. As the elections approach, CCP-controlled organizations for Taiwanese businesspeople in China have likewise announced that they would provide a favorable offer of airfare, packaged with two return tickets for the Lunar New Year holiday. This is the same kind of method used in Hong Kong.
Additionally, in Hong Kong’s district elections, the CCP generated public opinion about “loving our nation and loving Hong Kong.” As with the CCP’s cognitive warfare aimed at Taiwan on the theme of “a choice between war and peace,” this is a case of mobilizing voters by drawing a line between “us” and “the enemy.”
Whenever there is an important election in Taiwan, there are sure to be signs of CCP interference, and that is true of this year more than ever. The Chinese government is facing unfavorable situations at home and abroad. If the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) remains in power in Taiwan, it would mean that the CCP’s work regarding Taiwan has failed yet again, which would add insult to injury. Conversely, if the CCP could get the DPP out of power, it would be a major “victory” that would help consolidate Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) political power.
For this reason, starting from the second half of this year, there has been wave after wave of these kinds of election interference. At a news conference in Beijing on Wednesday last week, China’s Taiwan Affairs Office again blasted DPP presidential candidate Vice President William Lai (賴清德) and his running mate, former representative to the US Hsiao Bi-khim (蕭美琴). That same day, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) sent KMT Vice Chairman Andrew Hsia (夏立言) to China, ostensibly to meet with Taiwanese businesspeople, but really to confirm the converging relations between the KMT and the CCP.
At this time in the election run-up, the CCP’s starkly contrasting treatment of the two parties’ candidates reflects its eagerness to interfere. Just as Beijing has long been nurturing pro-China parties in Hong Kong, in this general election in Taiwan — in which the “blue” KMT and the “white” Taiwan People’s Party have been competing for the CCP’s favor — the CCP has also made clear by its actions which party it wants to win.
However, Taiwan is not Hong Kong. The biggest difference is that Taiwan is a sovereign and independent democratic country, whereas Hong Kong has been absorbed into China.
Faced with the CCP’s election interference, Taiwan has a set of defense mechanisms to deal with illegal acts such as interference by external forces. These include the Public Officials Election and Recall Act (公職人員選舉罷免法), the Presidential and Vice Presidential Election and Recall Act (總統副總統選舉罷免法) and the Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法).
In contrast, for Hong Kongers, “one country, two systems” has long existed in name only, while Beijing has of course become increasingly unscrupulous. Moreover, Taiwan occupies an important geostrategic position and the international community, including the US, Japan, Europe and other countries with similar ideologies, are another key supportive force that enables it to counteract CCP election interference. By means of international cooperation, Taiwan could give feedback to more powerful democratic countries about how to resist infiltration and influence operations against them by the CCP’s sharp power.
Beijing never stops its repressive actions against Hong Kong, and its latest district council elections have demonstrated its manipulative methods to the world. The CCP’s interference in Taiwan’s elections likewise involves fostering China-friendly political forces. With the example of Hong Kong before us, our only option is to safeguard our democracy and save Taiwan from becoming a second Hong Kong.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Chinese state-owned companies COSCO Shipping Corporation and China Merchants have a 30 percent stake in Kaohsiung Port’s Kao Ming Container Terminal (Terminal No. 6) and COSCO leases Berths 65 and 66. It is extremely dangerous to allow Chinese companies or state-owned companies to operate critical infrastructure. Deterrence theorists are familiar with the concepts of deterrence “by punishment” and “by denial.” Deterrence by punishment threatens an aggressor with prohibitive costs (like retaliation or sanctions) that outweigh the benefits of their action, while deterrence by denial aims to make an attack so difficult that it becomes pointless. Elbridge Colby, currently serving as the Under
Ho Ying-lu (何鷹鷺), a Chinese spouse who was a member of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) Central Standing Committee, on Wednesday last week resigned from the KMT, accusing the party of failing to clarify its “one China” policy. In a video released in October, Ho, wearing a T-shirt featuring a portrait of Mao Zedong (毛澤東), said she hoped that Taiwan would “soon return to the embrace of the motherland” and “quickly unify — that is my purpose and my responsibility.” The KMT’s Disciplinary Committee on Nov. 19 announced that Ho had been suspended from her position on the committee, although she was
The Ministry of the Interior on Thursday last week said it ordered Internet service providers to block access to Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu (小紅書, also known as RedNote in English) for a year, citing security risks and more than 1,700 alleged fraud cases on the platform since last year. The order took effect immediately, abruptly affecting more than 3 million users in Taiwan, and sparked discussions among politicians, online influencers and the public. The platform is often described as China’s version of Instagram or Pinterest, combining visual social media with e-commerce, and its users are predominantly young urban women,
Honduras’ election has opened a diplomatic moment that Taiwan cannot afford to ignore. Tegucigalpa’s 2023 decision to switch recognition from Taiwan to Beijing was a setback, but it is not irreversible. The incoming government in Honduras faces the same stubborn challenges that made China’s sweeping promises appealing in the first place — migration pressures, energy insecurity and limited foreign investment. Taiwan has an opportunity to make a unique offer consisting of credit lines and export credit. The offer should be strategic, well-structured, and large enough to command the attention of Honduras and other nations in the Western hemisphere. Taiwan’s development assistance has
RSS