Hong Kong's legislative elections last week were an exceptional example of democratic elections under an authoritarian government. Although the democratic camp won 60 percent of the direct vote, they did not gain a majority, only 25 of the 60 seats. It has therefore been portrayed by the international media as a defeat for the democratic camp and a great victory for Beijing's rule over Hong Kong. Meanwhile, officials in China's Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office happily declared that it was the most democratic election in the history of the territory.
Pinning their hopes on the effects of their demonstrations, the democratic camp said before the elections that their goal was to gain a majority with 31 seats and use the Legislative Council as a counter-balance to Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa (
A close look at the proportional representation system, however, shows that if democrats wanted to gain a majority in the legislature, they would have to win 24 seats or more in the direct elections, or 80 percent of the vote. This is almost impossible in a democratic election, and probably only occurs when a communist party elects its secretary-general.
The political actions of Hong Kong democrats are thus based on unrealistic vote calculations. Although there have been calls for tactical voting, attempting to mobilize huge numbers of voters in order to bring about the democratization of Hong Kong is naive and leaves Beijing with much room to maneuver.
Clearly, Hong Kong democracy lacks a fair electoral system capable of truly reflecting public opinion. Public participation in the election, which resulted in a record voter turnout of 55 percent, nonetheless ended in heavy defeat. Even if the democratic camp had won a majority, the "Administrative Control" written into Hong Kong's Basic Law makes the Legislative Council little more than a consultative institution. Furthermore, the National People's Congress dismissed the notion of real, meaningful democracy in Hong Kong back in April.
This may explain why many mild-mannered, middle class democratic legislators failed to get re-elected, while the bold and outspoken popular former radio host Albert Cheng (鄭經翰) and "Longhair" Leung Kwok-hung (梁國雄) together received more votes than the Liberal Party -- the second largest party with 10 seats. In contrast to the tears of the top leaders of the Democratic Party, "Longhair" protested against election oversights outside the Special Administrative Region (SAR) government as soon as he was elected.
This brings our thoughts to Taiwan and the period prior to the first legislative election. Although there had been elections for some legislative seats, they were too few, and there was no effective counterweight to old-guard politicians. The opposition movement has never won a majority, and has therefore clashed with the establishment, by focusing on the struggle to implement a democratic system. The purpose of elections is not just to collect votes, but rather to function as a link to social movements and liberate the voice of public opinion to challenge authority.
Returning to Hong Kong, the latest election has left it at a crossroads. The unfair electoral system has belittled the will of the majority and turned the mainstream into losers. This is the result of lazy public representatives. The responsibility of every politician is to promote the wishes of the public. This is the only way to save democracy in Hong Kong.
Hsu Yung-ming is an assistant research fellow at the Sun Yat-sen Institute for Social Sciences and Philosophy at the Academia Sinica.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
The military is conducting its annual Han Kuang exercises in phases. The minister of national defense recently said that this year’s scenarios would simulate defending the nation against possible actions the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) might take in an invasion of Taiwan, making the threat of a speculated Chinese invasion in 2027 a heated agenda item again. That year, also referred to as the “Davidson window,” is named after then-US Indo-Pacific Command Admiral Philip Davidson, who in 2021 warned that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had instructed the PLA to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. Xi in 2017
RSS