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
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS