Seven years after Britain handed Hong Kong over to the People's Republic of China (PRC), Beijing has lost patience with the Hong Kong people's demand for democracy. Within one month, the Chinese Government has moved with lightning speed to snuff out the people's desire for constitutional reforms.
On April 26, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPC), China's rubber stamp parliament, ruled out direct election by universal suffrage for Hong Kong's chief executive in 2007. It also rejected direct election for all members of the lawmaking Legislative Council (Legco) in 2008 by stipulating that half the Legco members be directly elected and the other half continue to be returned by functional constituencies consisting mainly of chambers of commerce, business and other professional people.
With this decision, Beijing has shattered the Hong Kong people's hope for speeding up the pace of democracy. It has ridden roughshod over public opinion and runs the risk of provoking strong reactions from many sectors of the community. With such blatant intervention, Beijing has abandoned any pretense of giving the territory "a high degree of autonomy" under former leader Deng Xiaoping's (
In so doing, Beijing has also ignored stipulations in Annex I and II of the Basic Law, which provide for a mechanism to change the method of elections in 2007 and 2008. Although the mechanism has not been activated and public consultation has not commenced, the NPC Standing Committee decided to rule out direct elections in 2007 and 2008 because Hong Kong "does not have such conditions." This is most offensive and humiliating.
Not only does Beijing have no respect for the wishes of the Hong Kong people, it does not even abide by the Basic Law. Furthermore, it is questionable whether the Standing Committee has the power to make such a legally binding declaration. If this is really the case, the Basic Law will be reduced to nothing but scrap paper. In future, the Standing Committee can make declarations with impunity on any subject and make them binding on the territory. This is sheer lawlessness.
Ever since the massive demonstrations on July 1 last year which attracted well over half a million protesters, the Hong Kong people have shown signs of heightened political awareness and maturity.
The peaceful and orderly protests have won praise and admiration from the international community.
Subsequent to these historic marches, a much-criticized law on national security based on Article 23 of the Basic Law had to be withdrawn from Legco, because the usually pro-government Liberal Party refused to support the bill.
The development no doubt angered Beijing, which saw Tung Chee-hwa (董建華) as both ineffectual and incompetent.
A few months later, there was further bad news for Beijing. On Nov. 23, the pro-Beijing political party Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB) was trounced in local district council elections. That must have set alarm bells ringing in the capital. When Tung went to Beijing in early December, President Hu Jintao (
There is little doubt that Beijing has lost confidence in Tung. Beijing was unhappy with his inability to enact legislation on national security and was shocked by the poor performance of the DAB in the district council elections, because the DAB specifically named the unpopular Tung as a reason for its electoral defeat.
Looking to the future, Beijing is concerned that many people will take to the streets again on July 1 this year to press their demands for democratic elections in 2007 and 2008. It is also worried that the DAB will be humiliated again in the Legco elections to be held on Sept. 12.
On the other hand, pro-democracy parties have said they will try to win at least half of the 60 seats in Legco so that they can exert more influence on the Tung administration. Beijing regards such a scenario as anathema and is said to be concerned that the situation may get out of hand. As Hong Kong enters the Legco election campaign period, many pro-democracy candidates have vowed to make direct elections in 2007 and 2008 the central plank of their platform.
I understand the central government has concerns but I think those worries are unfounded. Beijing should know the pro-democracy movement is not hellbent on creating chaos. We are not trying to make Hong Kong independent or to overthrow the Communist Party. We just want what we have been promised in the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law -- a high degree of autonomy and Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong.
In order to help the pro-Beijing and pro-business parties win the September election, Beijing decided to act swiftly to scotch demands for direct election in 2007 and 2008. The decision by the Standing Committee is an attempt to lay the matter to rest. However, the pro-democracy camp will not allow the issue to be forgotten.
We will urge the more than 1.5 million people who have not yet registered as voters to register before the deadline on May 16. We will urge the people to take part in the demonstration on July 1 to press their demands for democracy. We will mobilize the people to vote on Sept. 12 and turn that occasion into a quasi-referendum on direct elections in 2007 and 2008. Although Beijing has spoken, we refuse to be intimidated into silence.
The fight for democracy will go on.
On April 26, over 30 pro-democracy Legco members and district council chairmen and vice-chairmen walked out of a meeting with Chinese and Hong Kong officials. Before we left the meeting room, Yeung Sum (楊森), chairman of the Democratic Party, read out a letter which said we welcome dialogue with Beijing but could not accept a fait accompli. We then unfurled a banner saying we oppose Hong Kong being run by Beijing cadres and vowed the fight for democracy will go on.
The Frontier Party held a "black news conference" on April 27 to protest against the central government's rough handling of the democratization issue and its blatant disregard for Hong Kong public opinion.
Thirty-odd Frontier members all dressed up in black. We stressed this was not a sign of death, but a sign of protest against the central government.
In a sign of continuing protest, I said I would wear black every day in the coming month to exhibit my anger and disgust, and I invited all like-minded people to take similar action to give vent to their pent-up feelings.
In the coming weeks and months, I will consult Legco members and non-governmental organizations in order to map out the way forward.
I will also attend the meeting of the Civil Rights Front, the umbrella grouping which organized the July 1 march last year. In planning our way forward, we must work closely with other political parties and civil society to build a strong consensus.
Last year, when Hu and Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) came to power, there was a wave of optimism that a more enlightened leadership had taken over. If this is true, how can Hu and Wen allow such high-handed and unreasonable behavior?
How can they ignore the wishes of the Hong Kong people and violate stipulations in the Basic Law? I hope Hu and Wen know that many Hong Kong people cannot accept the NPC Standing Committee's decision and I urge them to come out to explain why Beijing acted in such a way. In taking such drastic action, China and Hong Kong have to pay a heavy price.
Emily Lau is a legislative councilor in Hong Kong and convener of the Frontier Party.
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
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
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,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS