China and Hong Kong's Dissolving Borders

Position Paper Policy

Well-prepared and successful delegates all have used position papers as a way to get through MUN conferences. Well-written position papers consolidate your research and ensure that you will be an able participant in quality debate. Consequently, debate will be more rewarding and resolutions will be more realistic and thorough. For your staff, the position paper illustrates your grasp of the topics and your overall ability to support your ideas. The submission of position papers is mandatory in order to qualify for awards.

Formatting All papers should not exceed 1 page - 12 point font and in Times New Roman with 1.15 spacing - Country Name, Delegate Name, Committee Name, and Topic clearly labeled on the top left-hand corner in that order - APA citation style

Paragraph I - TOPIC SUMMARY Introduction to your main topic Explain the significance of the problem from your country’s position. ● You should discuss your country’s perspective on the problem as it manifests itself at a national and international level. ● Refer back to the Historical Analysis in the background Guide for insight. Select some key points that your country believes the committee debate should focus on.

Paragraph II - PAST SOLUTIONS ● Identify and discuss past actions from your country and the international community. Discuss the implications of those actions in addressing the problem.

Paragraph III - PROPOSED SOLUTIONS ● Identify and discuss some of your country’s proposed solutions. ● What country blocks will support or not support your proposed solutions? Why or why not? ● How can your country or the international community realistically initiate your solutions? ● What are some of the key elements that must be included in a new resolution on the topic?

Please send all papers in PDF format with the subject title as “Position Paper: Country Name, First and Last Name” (Ex. Position Paper: United Kingdom, Theresa May) Please Submit your Position Paper before midnight on March 29th to [email protected] Delegates who would like to receive feedback on their position paper must have them submitted before March 27th.

Staff Introduction: Hello delegates and Welcome to the HK LegCo Committee!

Our names are Justin Look and Gordon Kean. We will be co-directing the HK LegCo Committee of the ShawMun Conference, 2020. We are permanent residents of Hong Kong and have always been passionate about the ever polar political climate of Hong Kong. In particular Hong Kong’s complicated relationship with China as a Special Administrative Region (SAR). Amongst ourselves, we often discuss possible solutions and similarities that could avoid polarization between the two heated parties.

Our objectives for these upcoming committee sessions are to help beginner delegates understand the systems of how committee sessions work and prepare delegates for future conferences. Additionally, we would like to encourage the experienced delegates to create stimulating and rousing debates, whilst trying to maintain a fair extent of organization and diplomacy in order to move things forward.

We will be working alongside Melody Lin to give you the best MUN experience possible. Melody has been involved in the MUN community internationally; she has been to conferences in the Philippines, Canada, and other countries. We believe working with someone with such great international exposure will widen our perspectives and help us look at things in the greater picture. Furthermore, being from Taiwan, a country that has received independence and is operating with its own resources and government systems, she can give great insights in terms of Hong Kong’s potential independent future.

Sincerely, Justin Look & Gordon Kean Directors of LegCo // ShawMun 2020

Table of Contents

1. Overview 4

a. The extradition treaty 4-7 b. What fuelled the protest’s continuation? 7 c. Hong Kong’s complicated relationship with China 8

2. Polarization between the two Parties (Protesters V. Government) 9 a. Protester’s stance 9 i. 5 Demands 10 ii. The Basic Law (Brief) 11 b. Police aggression and protester aggression 11-12 c. Government’s stance 12 i. Carrie Lam- Chief Executive of Hong Kong 13 ii. Reaction based government and lack of proactiveness. 13

d. Polarized Media i. Western media representation 14 ii. Eastern media representation 14 e. Solutions 14

3. China and Hong Kong’s dissolving borders 15 a. One country two systems 15 b. 2047 July 1st 15-16 c. Actions led to a dissolving border 16-18 d. China’s tightened grip of Hong Kong 19 e. Xi Jinping’s ideology 19 i. Communism and Socialism 19 ii. Prosperity and wealth gap 19 f. Solutions 19 4. Sources Cited 20

Questions to Consider:

1. What are the main factors contributing to polarization between the Hong Kong Government and protesters?

2. What are the impacts politically and economically if the 5 demands are met?

3. How does the government’s stance on the protest differ from that of the protester’s stance?

4. As a legislative member, what are some of the foreseeable solutions that can minimize polarization and increase commonalities?

5. What does your job in the Legislature feel about this polarization (What’s your character’s stance?) 6. How do Hong Kong and China dissolving borders act as a benefit or cost to Hong Kong’s political and economic structure?

7. What does Hong Kong’s democratic index indicate, in terms of the dissolving borders?

8. Does your character’s stance support the dissolving borders before the year 2047?

9. What’s the significance of Basic Law after 2047?

Overview: The 2019 Hong Kong Anti-ELAB protests are the culmination of years worth of frustration with the Hong Kong and Mainland Chinese government among the general Hong Kong populace. The protesters originally exclusively sought the full withdrawal of the extradition bill introduced by the Hong Kong government, but have since grown to five demands;

- Fully withdraw the extradition bill - Set up an independent inquiry to probe police brutality - Withdraw a characterization of early protests as "riots" (Gu Liping, 2019) - Release those arrested at protests

- Implement universal suffrage in Hong Kong

With no solution in sight, delegates will represent members of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong (LegCo) and attempt to establish commonality in the ever-hostile political climate that LegCo entails.

This is a specialized agency focusing on Hong Kong’s political and economic issues regarding the ongoing protest. The LegCo is going to be split 50/50, one half being pro-Beijing and one being pro-Hong Kong. Furthermore, this agency will attempt to analyze and resolve issues such as police brutality and the dissolving border of this special administrative region.

The Hong Kong specialized agency will provide an especially unique and valuable experience that will test delegates’ negotiation skills while behaving diplomatically as well as their ability to abide by their assigned LegCo members’ standpoint on the issue. The ultimate goal of these committee sessions will be to search for common ground and not to form polarized parties, as that will lead to more tensions within the Hong Kong Legislative Council.

In order to tackle these issues with an in-depth level of detail, we will narrow down to two specific topics. These topics are:

1. Polarization between Hong Kong Protesters and the Hong Kong Government 2. Gradual erosion of Hong Kong's autonomy from China before 2047

Timeline: 1839- 1860 - the Opium War took place, which led to Hong Kong’s special administrative status. The wars were fought in the mid 19th century due to England's attempted distribution of opium to the Chinese populace. The war resulted in a Chinese loss with the consequence being the concession of Hong Kong to the British Empire. July 1997 - Hong Kong is Handed over back to China as a Special Administrative region with terms and conditions listed under the basic law. 2014 - The umbrella movement was founded, a movement asking for one person one vote.

February 2019 - Hong Kong’s Security Bureau proposes amendments to extradition laws that would allow extraditions to countries, including mainland China, beyond the 20 states with which Hong Kong already has treaties. March 31 - Thousands take to the streets to protest against the proposed extradition bill. April 3 - Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam’s government introduces amendments to the extradition laws that would allow criminal suspects to be sent to mainland China for trial. April 28 - Tens of thousands of people march on the Legislative Council to demand the scrapping of the proposed amendments. May 11 -Protests break out in the legislature between pro-democracy lawmakers and those loyal to Beijing. May 30 - Concessions to the extradition bill introduced but critics say they are not enough. June 6 - More than 3,000 Hong Kong lawyers dressed in black take part in a rare protest march. June 9 - More than half a million people take to the streets. June 12 - Police fire rubber bullets and tear gas during the city’s largest and most violent protests in decades. Government offices are shut. June 15 - Lam indefinitely delays proposed extradition law. July 1 - Protesters storm the Legislative Council on the 22nd anniversary of the handover from British to Chinese rule, destroying pictures and daubing walls with graffiti. July 9 - Lam says the extradition bill is dead and that government work on it had been a “total failure”. July 21 - Men in white T-shirts, some armed with poles, storm a train at rural Yuen Long station, attacking passengers and passers-by, after several thousand activists surrounded China’s representative office. July 30 - Forty-four activists are charged with rioting, the first time the charge has been used during the protests. Aug. 9 - China’s aviation regulator demands Hong Kong flag carrier Cathay Pacific suspend personnel who have taken part in the protests. The airline suspends a pilot, one of the 44 charged, the next day. Aug. 14 - Police and protesters clash at Hong Kong’s international airport after flights were disrupted. Aug. 21 - Alibaba, China’s biggest e-commerce company, delays its Hong Kong listing of up to $15 billion. Sept. 2 - Lam says she has caused “unforgivable havoc” and would quit if she had a choice, according to a recording of remarks to business people. Sept. 3 - Lam says she had never asked the Chinese government to let her resign. Sept. 4 - Lam announces the formal withdrawal of the extradition bill. Critics say it is too little, too late. Sept. 17 - Lam pledges to hold talks with the community to try to ease tensions. Sept. 26 - Protesters trap Lam in a stadium for hours after her first “open dialogue”.

Oct. 1 - City rocked by the most widespread unrest since the protests began as China’s Communist Party rulers celebrate the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic. Police shoot an 18-year-old protester in the shoulder. Oct. 4 - Lam invokes colonial-era emergency powers to ban face masks, sparking violent protests. A police officer shoots a 14-year-old boy in the thigh. Oct. 16 - Lam abandons her policy speech amid lawmakers’ jeers. Prominent rights activist Jimmy Sham is beaten by four men wielding hammers and knives. Oct. 23 - Extradition bill is formally withdrawn. Oct. 29 - Authorities disqualify pro-democracy activist Joshua Wong from standing in upcoming district elections. Oct. 31 - Preliminary data shows Hong Kong slid into recession for the first time in a decade in the third quarter. Nov. 2 - Protesters vandalize China’s official Xinhua news agency, smashing doors, setting fires and throwing paint. Nov. 3 - A man with a knife bites off part of a politician’s ear and slashes several people after a shopping mall rally turns into a conflict with police. Nov. 4 - University student Chow Tsz-lok, 22, falls from the third to the second floor of a parking lot as police disperse protesters. Nov. 6 - A knife-wielding man attacks pro-Beijing lawmaker Junius Ho. Nov. 8 - Chow dies, the first student death during the protests. Nov. 11 - Police fire live rounds at protesters on the eastern side of Hong Kong island, one person wounded.

What sparked the Protest? The Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation Bill was a proposed bill more commonly referred to as the extradition Bill. The extradition bill was suggested to provide mutual legal assistance between Hong Kong and any place outside Hong Kong. This treaty was proposed by the Hong Kong government in February 2019 to establish a mechanism for transfers of fugitives not only for Taiwan, but also for Mainland China and Macau, which are currently excluded in existing laws surrounding this topic.

The extradition bill was proposed in the first place because of a disturbing murder in Taiwan, where a Hong Kong citizen, Chan Tong Kai, flew to Taipei to murder his girlfriend, Poon Hiu Wing. The victim was found dead, but the perpetrator escaped back to Hong Kong. But because the crime was committed on Taiwanese soil, and there was no extradition bill between Hong Kong and Taiwan, the perpetrator could not be arrested. This gave the Hong Kong government the idea of creating an extradition bill between Hong Kong and Taiwan. The

7 only problem is that if Hong Kong has an extradition treaty with Taiwan, it will also need one with China.

The introduction of the bill caused widespread criticism domestically and abroad from the legal profession, journalist organizations, business groups, and foreign governments fearing the erosion of Hong Kong's legal system and its built-in safeguards, as well as damage to Hong Kong's business climate. Most importantly, the Hong Kong people were fearful of how China’s laws regarding political prisoners will affect Hong Kong’s judicial system.

Beginning: There have been multiple protests against the bill in Hong Kong and other cities abroad. On June 9, 2019, a number of protesters estimated to have been from hundreds of thousands to more than a million marched in the streets and called for Chief Executive Carrie Lam to step down, On June 15, 2019, Lam announced she would 'suspend' the proposed bill, meaning that the bill would be at pause, but not fully withdrawn. Therefore, ongoing protests called for a complete withdrawal of the bill and subsequently the implementation of universal suffrage, which is promised in the Basic Law. On September 4, 2019, after 13 weeks of protests, Lam officially promised to withdraw the bill upon the resumption of the legislative session from its summer recess. On October 23, 2019, Secretary for Security John Lee announced the government's formal withdrawal of the bill.

What has fuelled the protests? After the bill was withdrawn, the protesters’ frustrations continue to increase, and protesters expanded their demands from a single demand to five different demands. - Fully withdraw the extradition bill - Set up an independent inquiry to probe police brutality - Withdraw a characterization of early protests as "riots" (Gu Liping, 2019) - Release those arrested at protests - Implement universal suffrage in Hong Kong

How did one demand turn to five demands? This depends on who you ask, but some political experts believe that the protests’ continuation is not only fuelled by political frustrations, but also an economic livelihood issue. As Hong Kong has a relatively low income-tax, most of Hong Kong’s government taxes come from land developers. With Hong Kong’s extremely dense population and developers being charged high taxes, developers sell houses for unaffordable prices. This results in today’s younger generation not seeing a future for themselves in Hong Kong. The loss of hope is the

8 major contribution to the accumulated frustration and these political issues only act as an excuse and activation for Hong Kong people to display this great deal of dissatisfaction and inner frustration. Even though the relationship between Hong Kong’s livelihood issues and its views on an extradition bill seems pretty abstract, these graphs make the correlation clear.

The first three graphs display the percentage of people identifying themselves as a Hong Konger or Chinese. If more people refer to themselves as being Chinese instead of a Hong Konger, this shows that people living in Hong Kong are happy to be part of China.

From 2003 to 2008, more Hong Kongers identified themselves as being part of China. If you look at the graph below and focus on the years when Hong Kong enjoyed the most prosperity (from 1993 to 1999), Hong Kong people did not mind being identified as Chinese, as they felt integrated as a part of China. When Hong Kong’s property decreased and the cost of living rose, people became dissatisfied, and did not want to be part of China. More political issues were sparked during those years. Therefore, it is clear that there is a connection between economic prosperity and political dissatisfaction.

Hong Kong’s complicated relationship with China Hong Kong is an SAR (Special Administrative Region), meaning that Hong Kong falls under the one country, two systems policy. The one country, two systems deal was set during the handover on July 1, 1997, when Margret Thatcher returned Hong Kong to China. This deal entails Hong Kong being politically and economically independent for 50 years (until July 1, 2047). The deadline was promised in order to allow Hong Kong to develop on its own without the Chinese government’s interference or involvement. This deal was respected for the first decade after the handover because Hong Kong was worth more than a quarter of the whole of China’s GDP. However, when Hong Kong’s percentage of China’s GDP started descending, China did not respect the deal as much as it did before and started the transition prior to the year 2047. This resulted in political tensions and unrest between Hong Kong people and the Chinese government.

Topic I: Polarization between the two Parties (Protesters V. Government)

Protester’s stance

The protesters don’t see a future for Hong Kong’s younger generation, as some feel China’s involvement in Hong Kong is hindering Hong Kong’s future economically and politically. The proposed extradition bill is what sparked the tensions and frustrations, but the people of Hong Kong wanting full democracy and autonomy was the main motive behind this protest. This explains why the demands of the protesters keep changing and keep asking for more.

5 Demands (五大訴求) The 5 demands have been mentioned by the protesters in many of their chants. This photo is a poster created by the protesters stating their demands before they will feel satisfied. So far, only the complete withdrawal of the extradition bill has been fulfilled.

The second demand for the release of arrested protesters without charges is controversial, because protesters were arrested for breaking Hong Kong

10 laws, even though some people were arrested in a violent manner.

The third demand, on the “withdrawal of the characterization of all protests as riots” (is also very debatable. The main difference between a riot and a protest is that a riot is a form of civil disorder, and a protest is an expression of objection. As those two meanings have a lot of overlapping criteria, there are many blurred lines, and categorization will be purely based on personal interpretation.

The independent investigation into police brutality is the least controversial and most straight forward demand. The question is: ‘why would the government agree with this demand and put extra effort into creating an independent unit or organization to dwell on its own wrongdoings, if any exist?’

The last demand overlaps with the demand from the umbrella movement, which was to have full universal suffrage, as promised in the Basic Law.

The Basic Law: “The Basic Law protects rights such as freedom of assembly and freedom of speech - neither of which exist in mainland China - and also sets out the structure of governance for the territory. Hong Kong is ruled by a Chief Executive with support from a formal body of advisors, called the Executive Council.” (BBC, 2019)

Article 45 of the Basic Law states that “the Chief Executive should be chosen by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee as an eventual goal.” (LegCo, 2019)

The controversial demands create tensions between protesters and the government. The tension leads to major polarization between the two parties. The protesters see these demands as being necessary, while the government does not respond to the people efficiently.

Protester’s Aggression and Police’s Aggression

Some believe that the police aggression is fuelling the protester’s anger and frustration, while others see police reaction being an appropriate response to enforce the violent actions of the protesters.

“A traffic cop rode his motorcycle into a crowd of demonstrators. A group of officers pepper-sprayed a woman in the face. Riot police slammed a Citigroup Inc. staffer to the ground.” (Bloomberg Politics, 2019). The action above would, of course, cause a lot of anger amongst the demonstrators. But some can argue that what the traffic cop did was reactionary to the protesters’ actions and that it was done as a defensive measure.

In November, alleged police abuses quickly went viral on social media, but only one of the officers involved was suspended (with pay). That was the first publicly announced punishment of an officer in five months of unrest.

The incidents contributed to the anger that sparked a week of unprecedented chaos in Hong Kong, where the lack of accountability for police abuses has become a key reason many protesters are hitting the streets.

From the point of view of the officers, we also have to keep in mind that Hong Kong officers never experienced such aggression. These officers are facing increasingly violent demonstrators armed with Molotov cocktails, bricks, and even flaming arrows. The question is: what’s the appropriate measure of defence for the police where they can help successfully enforce the law? Some think more force should be applied and some think that, because protesters are mostly teenagers on the streets, the level of aggression by the police is being exaggerated.

This leads to the 4th demand of the protesters, an independent investigation into police brutality. This independent organization will be able to make a judgment on whether the police are using the appropriate level of force to enforce the protester’s actions.

Government’s stance

In 2014, there was a peaceful protest called the umbrella movement. The umbrella movement was fuelled anger over the way China affects how Hong Kong’s Chief Executive is voted in. The Chief Executive is elected from a restricted pool of candidates who are supportive of the Central Government by a 1200-member Election Committee, an electoral college consisting of individuals and bodies selected or elected within 28 functional constituencies. Because most of these candidates are supportive of the Chinese government, and a lot of these individuals and bodies have great business connections with China, their votes are going to be overwhelmingly pro-Beijing

The undemocratic government in Hong Kong means the people living there are unwilling to trust the central government. This means every choice the Hong Kong government makes in favour of the Chinese government will cause unrest within the Hong Kong community. The extradition bill proposed by Carrie Lam, Hong Kong’s Chief Executive can be a great example of this. The distrust between the people and government is a great explanation for the causes of current tensions and polarization.

Carrie Lam- Chief Executive of Hong Kong

Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-Ngor is Hong Kong’s current Chief Executive, serving as the 4th Chief Executive of Hong Kong since 2017. She served as the Secretary for Development from 2007 to 2012 and Chief Secretary for Administration from 2012 to 2017. Her previous roles in the government made her political views pro Beijing. She was voted in because of the Chinese government’s influence on the election, and people were upset because it violated the idea of universal suffrage suggested by the Basic Law.

Reaction based government and lack of proactiveness:

Carrie Lam was quoted recently saying, “I said before that I didn't care much about my popularity. But did I make use of it? Yes.” (Carrie Lam, 2018) Lam not caring about her popularity just shows that she does not care what others think of her decisions, this closed mindset can also cause polarization for those who disagree with her. On the flip side, it can make those who agree with her feel as though they have her support, but that is not what happened.

“Usually, even when a bill draws extreme opinions, there can be a process of expression and negotiation,” (Carrie Lam, 2019) she said about the extradition bill. Part of why people don’t

13 feel assured by or trusting of the Chief Executive is because she’s not saying what the people want to hear. She’s sometimes too neutral and often will not give assurance to the people of Hong Kong. Instead of being proactive, her statements are all reactions to specific events. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9I7wQywRWs

The youtube video linked above can be an example of her not going into detail and instead just giving a brief opinion on the situation. A reactionary Chief Executive can lead to distrust, which eventually leads to a divide between the people.

Polarized Media

Western Media is mostly pro-democracy, especially in major democracies like the U.S. The bias in these countries can make Hong Kong sound like it’s trying really hard to fight for democracy. Additionally, the relationships between China and major western countries have historically been difficult, so when opportunities to say that the Chinese government is at fault arises, western powers will likely take it.

On the flip side, Chinese media are usually more conservative and pro-government. The two very different sides of media representation will pull people from the middle to have strong political views on the issue, often based on where they are consuming the information. The media creates frustrations that cause the current unrest.

Solutions Solutions are the major priority of the upcoming committee sessions. Whether it’s to control media platforms or educate the protesters on adding leniency to their demands, there are no straightforward solutions. Finding a clearer solution will be more feasible if more research is done.

Topic II: China and Hong Kong’s dissolving borders and ‘One Country, Two

Systems’ Policy One Country Two Systems

2047 will mark 50 years since Britain handed Hong Kong over to China. Within this half-century, a ‘One Country, Two Systems’ policy was supposed to be implemented for Hong Kong and China's governmental systems. This was seen at the time to ensure a certain level of autonomy for Hong Kong. Under the conditions of the policy, Hong Kong was to retain its capitalist economic system, currency (the Hong Kong Dollar), legal system, legislative system, and people's rights and freedoms for fifty years as a special administrative region (SAR) of China. The Hong Kong public has perceived these conditions to have been breached on various occasions, sparking widespread condemnation and protests.

July 1, 2047

“In 2047, our freedom will become nothing in Hong Kong,” said Alex Lo, 22. As the date nears, it becomes apparent that the general sentiment about Hong Kong's reintegration to its motherland among the Hong Kong populace is not a hopeful one. Since the handover occurred, China’s approach to Hong Kong has changed drastically. Once viewed as a city worthy of emulation among China’s vying local economies, Hong Kong is now seen more like a city with an inclination towards trouble. This has prompted more intervention in local affairs by the Chinese Government. A quote from Ip Kwok-him, a non-official member of Hong Kong’s Executive Council and deputy to China’s parliament, reads, “As President Xi says, one country is one country; it’s no longer about accommodating Hong Kong’s needs.” (Deputy to China’s parliament). As made clear here, the philosophy towards Hong Kong is now almost solely acting as an opposition to coexistence. Xi Jinping has also stated that “Hong Kong has joined the remarkable journey toward the great renewal of the Chinese nation … Challenging Beijing’s power is an act that crosses the red line.” (Jeremy Page, 2019) This attitude from China’s top official culminates the fears experienced by the Hong Kong general public. Hong Kongers have never before known a government takes criticism as a direct attack.

Continuing violations of the autonomy of Hong Kong by China has led to outrage among the Hong Kong populace, particularly among the adolescent and young adult age groups. As referenced in the background information, the youth in Hong Kong already see little to no hope for the future due to exorbitant property prices and sparse job opportunities. This, coupled with China repeatedly not living up to its promises of universal suffrage and gradually abrading at

Hong Kong’s autonomy has caused an unprecedented level of frustration and anger with China. China has yet to provide a concrete answer for whether July 1, 2047 will be the end of the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ model of governance. ‘One Country, Two Systems’ does not exclusively ensure the Hong Kong people freedom of press and expression, but also serves a myriad of other political and economic freedoms that are not afforded to residents of Mainland China. These include the common law legal system, a low tax rate, and open markets. These have been staples of Hong Kong’s autonomy, and China will need to carefully consider the implications of choosing to infringe upon Hong Kong’s fiscal and social policy. Hong Kong has epitomized a globally competitive commercial center since the handover occurred. However, if the Chinese government continues to punish political dissent among employees of large Hong Kong-based corporations; such as Cathay Pacific (Swire), Hong Kong will face dire fiscal consequences. Hong Kong has recently fallen into its first recession since the global financial crisis in 2008. The chinese government will p

Controlled Media: Censorship in Hong Kong

Prior to the transfer of sovereignty over Hong Kong in 1997, Hong Kong boasted one of the highest degrees of press freedom in Asia. Since the handover to China, Hong Kong has been granted relative legal, economic, and political autonomy under the one country, two systems policy. This contrasts the rest of China, where control over the media is pervasive.

Hong Kong's freedom of speech, press, and publication are all protected under both Article 27 of the Hong

Kong Basic Law and Article 16 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights.

Poster Illustration during Hong Kong’s series of Protests.

When Hong Kong’s GDP lost value to China, China did not respect the Basic Law as much as it used to. Observers have noted a trend of increasing threats to press freedom in the territory, including physical attacks on journalists, acts targeted against liberal media sources and their owners, withdrawal of advertising revenues, and appointment of compliant, pro-Beijing Chief Editors. The decline in Hong Kong's ranking on the Press Freedom Index published annually by Reporters Without Borders has been vertiginous: it stood at 70th in 2015, having lost nine places compared to 2014. It ranked 18th in 2002 (Press Freedom Index, 2015).

Some notable examples of China’s control over Hong Kong’s media would be:

South China Morning Post- Since Robert Kuok acquired the South China Morning Post in 1993, there have been concerns over the forced departures, in rapid succession, of several staff and contributors who were considered critical of China or its supporters in Hong Kong (SCMP, 2019).

Apple Daily- The liberal newspaper Apple Daily has been under sustained pressure. In 1997, reporters from were denied permission to cover a Hong Kong reception organized by the Chinese Foreign Ministry due to their history of criticizing China. It has been subjected to advertising boycotts, its reporters have been assaulted, its owner has been attacked, and its premises have been fire-bombed. Its support of the Umbrella Revolution earned it unprecedented cyber-attacks; copies of the paper have been spoilt by masked thugs. It even suffered a physical blockade that disrupted its logistics for almost a week (SCMP, 2019).

Other parties that were affected by this include the University of Hong Kong, RTHK, and other sources of media. Even though these actions are done behind the scenes, China utilizes media and propaganda to dissolve Hong Kong and China’s borders and make Hong Kong’s citizens buy into that idea.

Freedom of speech Article 27 of the Basic Law declares: “Hong Kong residents shall have freedom of speech, of the press and of publication; freedom of association, of assembly, of the procession, and of demonstration; and the right and freedom to form and join trade unions; and to strike.” (LegCo, HK)

Over the years, China has tightened its control over the city, chipping away at freedom of speech, judicial independence, and political rights. (Alongrdian, 2014)

A protester defacing the Hong Kong emblem after hundreds of people stormed the legislature on 1 July. Photograph: Kin Cheung/AP

Independent judicial: Rule of law

Over the past few weeks, millions protested against the proposed extradition law that allows individuals to stand trial in China’s opaque courts. The protests forced the government to suspend the bill and its leader, Carrie Lam, apologized for the crisis, but the protesters were dissatisfied that she refused to fully withdraw the bill.

Meanwhile, the law and judicial process are being used by the government to suppress dissidents, warn critics, who point to the prosecution of leaders of the Umbrella movement for archaic common-law offences such as “conspiracy to commit public nuisance” (J.R. Spencer, 2019) and “inciting others to public nuisance” (J.R. Spencer, 2019). Protesters believe this extradition bill will intrude in Hong Kong’s Judicial system. The extradition bill is seen as part of China’s effort to erase the Hong Kong and Chinese border, while the protests trigger and fuel China’s tightened grip of Hong Kong.

China’s tightened grip:

By impeding basic rights such as Hong Kong’s independent judicial system, free speech, freedom of media, and universal suffrage, China is trying to gradually begin the 2047 transition before the year 2047. Some believe China starting transition right now is correct, but some believe that transition should only start after July 1st, 2047, because of Hong Kong’s Basic Laws

18 protected by Hong Kong’s independent Judicial system.

This graph shows the index for the democratic decline in Hong Kong. Democratic index directly reflects the tightened grip of China in Hong Kong.

Source Cited References

Spencer J.R. (2019, July 6). Why the chaos and polarisation in Hong Kong should be blamed on Carrie Lam's regime, not the protesters. Retrieved from https://www.hongkongfp.com/2019/07/07/chaos-polarisation-hong-kong-blamed-carrie-la ms-regime-not-protesters/

Gu, Liping. Hong Kong's economic takeoff over the past 22 years. (2019, July 1). Retrieved from http://www.ecns.cn/news/economy/2019-07-01/detail-ifzkrnzp2017317.shtml

Li, Jeff. Hong Kong-China extradition plans explained. (2019, December 13). Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-47810723

Lowe, Alex. More hands needed to deal with livelihood issues. (2018, July 20). Retrieved from https://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/2115624/more-hands-needed-deal -hong-kong-livelihood-issues

Myers, S. L., & Hernández, J. C. (2019, August 19). With Troop Buildup, China Sends a Stark Warning to Hong Kong. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/19/world/asia/hong-kong-china-troops.html

The Hong Kong protests explained in 100 and 500 words. (2019, November 28). Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-49317695

主要內容. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.legco.gov.hk/