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
The return of US president-elect Donald Trump to the White House has injected a new wave of anxiety across the Taiwan Strait. For Taiwan, an island whose very survival depends on the delicate and strategic support from the US, Trump’s election victory raises a cascade of questions and fears about what lies ahead. His approach to international relations — grounded in transactional and unpredictable policies — poses unique risks to Taiwan’s stability, economic prosperity and geopolitical standing. Trump’s first term left a complicated legacy in the region. On the one hand, his administration ramped up arms sales to Taiwan and sanctioned
The Taiwanese have proven to be resilient in the face of disasters and they have resisted continuing attempts to subordinate Taiwan to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Nonetheless, the Taiwanese can and should do more to become even more resilient and to be better prepared for resistance should the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) try to annex Taiwan. President William Lai (賴清德) argues that the Taiwanese should determine their own fate. This position continues the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) tradition of opposing the CCP’s annexation of Taiwan. Lai challenges the CCP’s narrative by stating that Taiwan is not subordinate to the
US president-elect Donald Trump is to return to the White House in January, but his second term would surely be different from the first. His Cabinet would not include former US secretary of state Mike Pompeo and former US national security adviser John Bolton, both outspoken supporters of Taiwan. Trump is expected to implement a transactionalist approach to Taiwan, including measures such as demanding that Taiwan pay a high “protection fee” or requiring that Taiwan’s military spending amount to at least 10 percent of its GDP. However, if the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) invades Taiwan, it is doubtful that Trump would dispatch
World leaders are preparing themselves for a second Donald Trump presidency. Some leaders know more or less where he stands: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy knows that a difficult negotiation process is about to be forced on his country, and the leaders of NATO countries would be well aware of being complacent about US military support with Trump in power. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would likely be feeling relief as the constraints placed on him by the US President Joe Biden administration would finally be released. However, for President William Lai (賴清德) the calculation is not simple. Trump has surrounded himself
RSS