The continued existence of the Democratic Party in Hong Kong had given a flicker of hope that a path remained to improving the political situation in the former British colony. That faint flicker looks like it would soon be extinguished.
Established in 1994, a few years before the UK government’s official handover of Hong Kong to Beijing in 1997, the Democratic Party is the oldest and largest extant pro-democracy party in the territory. At times accused of being cautious in its advocacy, the party followed a pragmatic approach to achieving reform, and was the only party in Hong Kong that negotiated directly with Beijing’s Hong Kong Liaison Office.
It was through this relationship that party members were informed by Chinese officials that Beijing had lost its patience with the party, and that they should prepare to disband or face serious consequences.
In truth, the writing has been on the wall for some time. While the final decision to disband has yet to be made, a party general meeting on Sunday concluded with 90 percent of members voting to move forward with the process.
Any vestigial effort to improve the rights situation in Hong Kong has to be organized from outside. Amnesty International on Tuesday announced that it had relaunched its Hong Kong branch “in exile,” after its two offices in the territory were closed in 2021 following the introduction of Hong Kong’s National Security Law the previous year. Registered in Switzerland, the office’s operations are to be orchestrated by Hong Kongers in Taiwan, Australia, Canada, the UK and the US.
The system in Hong Kong has been so entirely subsumed by Beijing’s Chinese Communist Party (CCP) regime as to make any reference to it as separate from China irrelevant. Democracy in Hong Kong is dead, and the CCP has killed it.
British lawmaker Wera Hobhouse on Thursday last week was denied entry into Hong Kong. Hobhouse said that she had been given no reason. A Hong Kong government spokesperson said only: “The person concerned knows best what he or she has done.”
The Hong Kong government gave the impression that there was no need to explain the denial, almost as if it was surprised the question even had to be asked. Perhaps it had a right to be, at which point the question becomes, why should anybody be surprised that the authorities act like this in the new Hong Kong?
Hobhouse should not have been surprised that she was turned away. She is a member of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC). There is little love lost between the CCP and IPAC. Reports of the denial say that Hobhouse was the first British MP to have received that kind of treatment since the 1997 handover. However, it is not entirely without precedent.
In 2014, a British delegation seeking to visit Hong Kong to monitor adherence to the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration was refused entry. Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Hua Chunying (華春瑩) at the time said “Britain has no sovereignty over Hong Kong ... and no right to oversight.” Actually, according to the agreement, it did.
Three years later, ministry spokesman Lu Kang (陸慷) said the declaration is “a historical document that no longer has any realistic meaning.” That unilateral interpretation should not be surprising, either.
The British government might have been offended that a British MP was turned away from its former colony, but Hobhouse was not refused entry into Hong Kong, she was turned away from China. Did nobody listen to what Hua and Lu said? What has happened to Hong Kong is tragic, but nobody should be surprised.
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
Taiwan People’s Party Legislator-at-large Liu Shu-pin (劉書彬) asked Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) a question on Tuesday last week about President William Lai’s (賴清德) decision in March to officially define the People’s Republic of China (PRC), as governed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), as a foreign hostile force. Liu objected to Lai’s decision on two grounds. First, procedurally, suggesting that Lai did not have the right to unilaterally make that decision, and that Cho should have consulted with the Executive Yuan before he endorsed it. Second, Liu objected over national security concerns, saying that the CCP and Chinese President Xi
RSS