On Tuesday last week, Hong Kong police announced the addition of six more overseas Hong Kongers to its wanted list, including Carmen Lau (劉珈汶) of the Hong Kong Democracy Council, former pro-independence group head Tony Chung (鍾翰林) and former TVB celebrity and HongKonger Station cofounder Joseph Tay (鄭敬基). Last year, Hong Kong announced 19 people on the wanted list.
The Hong Kongers are accused of engaging in activities such as using social media or video platforms to spread “separatism” and lobbying for Hong Kong officials and judges to be sanctioned by foreign governments. They were accused of inciting secession, colluding with foreign forces and endangering national security, and openly criticized them for “selling out Hong Kong and the nation.”
Even UK-based commentator Chung Kim-wah (鍾劍華), a longtime advocate of the “Greater China” idea, has been labeled a pro-independence activist. That is a blatant falsehood and a challenge to universal values.
Hong Kong’s wanted list immediately attracted strict criticism from the UK, US, EU and other countries, and could likely provoke Western retaliation.
Among the six additions to the wanted list, some have connections with foreign representatives and civil society groups. While abroad, they have promoted the abolition of the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office and exposed China’s intent to use the territory as a proxy to infiltrate the West, producing quite positive results.
The Hong Kong government is publishing the list in an attempt to silence activists and prevent them from lobbying foreign governments to pass legislation to counter Beijing. More importantly, the activists have significant influence on social media platforms and within the overseas Hong Kong community. China is using the wanted list as a way of isolating those leaders, and intimidating overseas Hong Kongers and online supporters who still have the opportunity to enter and leave the territory in an attempt to create distance between the two groups. That way, authorities can use the charge of “supporting wanted criminals” to keep Hong Kongers from providing financial assistance to the accused or their organizations.
At the end of last year, some Hong Kongers were arrested by police for subscribing to creative platforms run by other wanted Hong Kongers, such as disbanded pro-democracy Hong Kong political party Demosisto cofounder Nathan Law (羅冠聰) and former Hong Kong lawmaker and democracy advocate Ted Hui (許智?).
People on the wanted list, and those that view and subscribe to their platforms would all be charged as criminals for their online activity. That shows China’s online army not only spreads rumors and incites animosity, but also monitors online platforms.
Such tactics could also be used to target and surveil the behavior of ordinary Internet users, even those who do not post comments, but only watch videos or read posts. China is using its draconian laws to intimidate media and Internet users into self-censorship, building an invisible wall. Its ultimate objective is complete control of information, collaborating with puppet governments and “cyberwarriors” to persistently attack Hong Kongers striving for freedom and democracy.
Beijing’s aim is to make Hong Kongers forget the truth and believe in distorted narratives, inciting people to turn against one another. China’s model of cognitive warfare in Hong Kong mirrors the tactics it employed in Taiwan. In an era where China’s cyberwarriors run rampant and artificial intelligence tools make it difficult to discern fact from fiction, it is vital that citizens cultivate critical thinking skills.
Hong Tsun-ming, originally from Hong Kong, is a policy specialist in the Taiwan Statebuilding Party.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
The National Development Council (NDC) on Wednesday last week launched a six-month “digital nomad visitor visa” program, the Central News Agency (CNA) reported on Monday. The new visa is for foreign nationals from Taiwan’s list of visa-exempt countries who meet financial eligibility criteria and provide proof of work contracts, but it is not clear how it differs from other visitor visas for nationals of those countries, CNA wrote. The NDC last year said that it hoped to attract 100,000 “digital nomads,” according to the report. Interest in working remotely from abroad has significantly increased in recent years following improvements in
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
RSS