DOCSLIB.ORG

Submission to the United Nations UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Submission to the United Nations UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW CIVIC PARTY (CP) Submission to the United Nations UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) CHINA 31st session of the UPR Working Group of the Human Rights Council November 2018 Introduction 1. We are making a stakeholder’s submission in our capacity as a political party of the pro-democracy camp in Hong Kong for the 2018 Universal Periodic Review on the People's Republic of China (PRC), and in particular, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR). Currently, our party has five members elected to the Hong Kong Legislative Council, the unicameral legislature of HKSAR. 2. In the Universal Periodic Reviews of PRC in 2009 and 2013, not much attention was paid to the human rights, political, and social developments in the HKSAR, whilst some positive comments were reported on the HKSAR situation. i We wish to highlight that there have been substantial changes to the actual implementation of human rights in Hong Kong since the last reviews, which should be pinpointed for assessment in this Universal Periodic Review. In particular, as a pro-democracy political party with members in public office at the Legislative Council (LegCo), we wish to draw the Council’s attention to issues related to the political structure, election methods and operations, and the exercise of freedom and rights within and outside the Legislative Council in HKSAR. Most notably, recent incidents demonstrate that the PRC and HKSAR authorities have not addressed recommendations made by the Human Rights Committee in previous concluding observations in assessing the implementation of International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). There are worrying signs of further erosion of rights in the HKSAR. 3. This submission focuses on issues related to Art. 19, 21, and 25 of the ICCPR. Civic Party urges the PRC and HKSAR governments to ensure the implementation of the relevant rights in the HKSAR . Part 1 - Constitutional Reforms for Chief Executive and Legislative Council elections 4. Constitutional reforms for genuine universal suffrage for the Chief Executive and the Legislative Council elections have been delayed for almost a decade and still lack progress. As it currently stands, LegCo is a semi-democratically elected body comprising 70 members, 35 of whom are directly elected through five geographical constituencies (GCs) under the proportional representation system with largest remainder method and Hare quota. The other 35 seats are indirectly elected through trade-based and profession-based functional constituencies (FCs) with limited electorates largely controlled by the pro -Beijing camp. The main functions of the Legislative Council are to enact, amend or repeal laws; examine and approve budgets, taxation and public expenditure; and raise questions on the work of the government. Meanwhile, the Chief Executive is elected by the Election Committee comprising 1200 members from selective constituencies and industries, while ordinary residents of HKSAR are not entitled to direct votes in the election. 5. When constitutional reform was initiated in 2014, on 31 August 2014, the Standing Committee of the National People ’s Congress (NPCSC) adopted a decision (831 Decision) on the selection method of the 2017 Chief Executive and 2016 Legislative Council elections. The 831 Decision provides for a “one person, one vote” electoral framework. However, it came with a pre -selection process that raised serious concerns about the representativeness and openness of the nomination process. The requirement that “the Chief Executive has to be a person who loves the country and loves Hong Kong" also brought about controversy. As the 831 Decision stipulates that a nomination committe e of 1200 members, which is largely controlled by the pro-Beijing camp, would nominate two or three candidates, and each candidate must have the endorsement of more than half of all members of the nominating committee. There was public backlash against the 831 Decision as the mechanism it proposed would exclude candidates of certain political views, especially ones that are not pro -Beijing. 6. The Human Rights Committee stated its concerns in its Concluding Observations (April 29, 2013, para 6) and recommend ed that: “Hong Kong, China, should take all necessary measures to implement universal and equal suffrage in conformity with the [ICCPR] as a matter of priority for all future elections. It should outline clear and detailed plans on how universal and equal suffrage might be instituted and ensure enjoyment by all its citizens, under the new electoral system, of the right to vote and to stand for election in compliance with article 25 of the Covenant, taking due account of the Committee's general comment No. 2 5 (1996) on the right to participate in public affairs, voting rights and the right of equal access to public service. It is recommended to consider steps leading to withdrawing the reservation to article 25(b) of the Covenant.”ii (Emphasis added). 7. Civic Party LegCo members co-signed a submission in response to OHCHR’s request on 16 November 2017 for information relating to the Questionnaire on the contribution of parliaments (See Annex I), illustrating the incompatibility of the 831 Decision with Art. 25 of the ICCPR, and the lack of proper human rights considerations in the NPCSC as the 831 Decision was formulated. As of today, the NPCSC and the HKSAR Administration have not shown any initiative in altering or removing the 831 Decision so that it would be aligned with universally recognised standards for democratic elections, such as that provisioned in ICCPR. Worse still, it appears that the HKSAR Administration has no plan to introduce any constitutional reform in this administrative term (2017 -2022). This highlights that the PRC and HKSAR Administration have no desire to fulfill their treaty obligations under Art. 25 of the ICCPR or under their constitutions to implement genuine universal and equal suffrage for the Chief Executive and Legislative Council elections. Part 2 - The Freedom of Assembly, of Procession, of Demonstration and of Expression 8. Public backlash to the 831 Decision prompted the 79-day Occupy Central protests, aka the Umbrella Movement, a peaceful demonstration drawing a large number of HK residents and members of the civil society to the streets. In its aftermath, the HKSAR Administration ordered numerous a rrests and prosecution of student leaders, politicians, and participants of the movement. This shows the HKSAR Administration’s increasing intolerance on the exercise of freedom of assembly and expression by Hong Kong residents. 9. On 7 November 2017, a group of UN experts urged the HKSAR Government to honour its human rights commitments towards democracy activists when three democracy activists, Joshua Wong, Nathan Law and Alex Chow were sentenced by the Court of Appeal to imprisonment. They were charged un lawful assembly as they had entered into an enclosed area, commonly known as the Civic Square, outside the Government Headquarters at the beginning of Occupying Central. iii Although the three student leaders successfully appealed against their imprisonment s entences in the Court of Final Appeal, the relatively strict sentencing guidelines set by the lower court with regards to unlawful assemblies were upheld. iv 10. It is worth noting that the Human Rights Committee has expressed concerns regarding the Public Order Ordinance itself : “[t]he Committee is concerned about (a) the application in practice of certain terms contained in the Public Order Ordinance, inter alia, “disorder in public places” or “unlawful assembly”, which may facilitate excessive restriction to the Covenant rights, (b) the increasing number of arrests of, and prosecutions against, demonstrators, and (c) the use of camera and video -recording by police during demonstrations (arts. 17 and 21).” It also recommended that “Hong Kong, China, should ensure that the implementation of the Public Order Ordinance is in conformity with the Covenant. It should also establish clear guidelines for police and for records for the use of vi deo-recording devices and make such guidelines accessible to the public. ” (Emphasis added). v 11. The same Court of Appeal, upon a similar application made by the Secretary for Justice to review sentences, changed the sentences of thirteen activists convicted of unlawful assembly from community service orders to 8-13 months of imprisonment on 15 August 2017.vi These cases are pending appeal at the Court of Final Appeal. Another nine Occupy Central leaders are facing different charges of common law public nuisance, an archaic offence rarely used in Hong Kong, vii with ongoing hearings in process. 12. These legal actions criminalise legitimate and relatively peaceful exercise of fundamental rights of opinion and expression, peaceful assembly and association, and the right to defend these rights under Art. 19 and 21 of the ICCPR. Part 3 - The Right to Vote and to be Elected, to Take Part in Public Affairs, and the Rule of Law Barring Candidates from Running at Elections 13. Following the Umbrella Movement, the HKSAR administration barred a number of candidates from standing in elections. In the Legislative Council General Election in September 2016 (2016 LegCo Election), five candidates were disqualified on the basis that they allegedly campaigned on pro-independence platforms, despite most of them were non-violent. viii This contrasts with the fact that Edward Leung Tin Kei, who ran a similar pro-independence campaign, was qualified to run in the Legislative Council By-Election in February 2016. Among the disqualified five in September 2016 was Chan Ho Tin, convener of the Hong Kong National Party, who launched a petition against the Returning Officer’s decision to disqualify him from running. The court however ruled against him, citing NPCSC’s interpretation of the Basic Law and that the Returning Officer ’s decision was “clearly correct”.ix 14. Similarly, in the 2018 by-election, Agnes Chow Ting, member of Demosistō, was disqualified from running as the self-determinist platform of Demosistō was deemed unconstitutional.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Reviewing and Evaluating the Direct Elections to the Legislative Council and the Transformation of Political Parties in Hong Kong, 1991-2016
    Journal of US-China Public Administration, August 2016, Vol. 13, No. 8, 499-517 doi: 10.17265/1548-6591/2016.08.001 D DAVID PUBLISHING Reviewing and Evaluating the Direct Elections to the Legislative Council and the Transformation of Political Parties in Hong Kong, 1991-2016 Chung Fun Steven Hung The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong After direct elections were instituted in Hong Kong, politicization inevitably followed democratization. This paper intends to evaluate how political parties’ politics happened in Hong Kong’s recent history. The research was conducted through historical comparative analysis, with the context of Hong Kong during the sovereignty transition and the interim period of democratization being crucial. For the implementation of “one country, two systems”, political democratization was hindered and distinct political scenarios of Hong Kong’s transformation were made. The democratic forces had no alternative but to seek more radicalized politics, which caused a decisive fragmentation of the local political parties where the establishment camp was inevitable and the democratic blocs were split into many more small groups individually. It is harmful. It is not conducive to unity and for the common interests of the publics. This paper explores and evaluates the political history of Hong Kong and the ways in which the limited democratization hinders the progress of Hong Kong’s transformation. Keywords: election politics, historical comparative, ruling, democratization The democratizing element of the Hong Kong political system was bounded within the Legislative Council under the principle of the separation of powers of the three governing branches, Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. Popular elections for the Hong Kong legislature were introduced and implemented for 25 years (1991-2016) and there were eight terms of general elections for the Legislative Council.
    [Show full text]
  • Civic Party (Cp)
    立法會 CB(2)1335/17-18(04)號文件 LC Paper No. CB(2)1335/17-18(04) CIVIC PARTY (CP) Submission to the United Nations UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) CHINA 31st session of the UPR Working Group of the Human Rights Council November 2018 Introduction 1. We are making a stakeholder’s submission in our capacity as a political party of the pro-democracy camp in Hong Kong for the 2018 Universal Periodic Review on the People's Republic of China (PRC), and in particular, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR). Currently, our party has five members elected to the Hong Kong Legislative Council, the unicameral legislature of HKSAR. 2. In the Universal Periodic Reviews of PRC in 2009 and 2013, not much attention was paid to the human rights, political, and social developments in the HKSAR, whilst some positive comments were reported on the HKSAR situation. i We wish to highlight that there have been substantial changes to the actual implementation of human rights in Hong Kong since the last reviews, which should be pinpointed for assessment in this Universal Periodic Review. In particular, as a pro-democracy political party with members in public office at the Legislative Council (LegCo), we wish to draw the Council’s attention to issues related to the political structure, election methods and operations, and the exercise of freedom and rights within and outside the Legislative Council in HKSAR. Most notably, recent incidents demonstrate that the PRC and HKSAR authorities have not addressed recommendations made by the Human Rights Committee in previous concluding observations in assessing the implementation of International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
    [Show full text]
  • 081216-Keast-YAIA-HK
    Hong Kong’s disaffected youths – Is the criticism warranted? December 7, 2016 Jacinta Keast Sixtus ‘Baggio’ Leung and Yau Wai-ching, two young legislators from the localist Youngspiration party, have been barred from Hong Kong’s legislative council (LegCo). Never has China’s National People’s Congress (NPC) jumped to an interpretation on a matter in Hong Kong without a prior request from the local government or courts. This comes after the pair modified their oaths, including enunciating the word ‘China’ as ‘Cheena’ (支那), a derogatory term used by the Japanese in World War II, using expletives to refer to the People’s Republic of China, and waving around blue ‘Hong Kong is not China’ banners at their swearing in. Commentators, including those from the pan-democratic side of the legislature, have called their behaviour infantile, ignorant and thuggish, and have demanded ‘that the hooligans be locked up’. But is this criticism warranted? A growing tide of anti-Mainlander vitriol has been building in Hong Kong since it was handed back to the People’s Republic of China in 1997 under a special constitution termed The Basic Law. In theory, the constitution gave Hong Kong special privileges the Mainland did not enjoy—a policy called ‘One Country, Two Systems’. But in practice, more and more Hong Kong residents feel that the long arm of Beijing’s soft power is extending over the territory. The Occupy movement and later the 2014 Umbrella Revolution began once it was revealed that the Chinese government would be pre-screening candidates for the 2017 Hong Kong Chief Executive election, the election for Hong Kong’s top official.
    [Show full text]
  • H. Res. 422 in the House of Representatives, U
    H. Res. 422 In the House of Representatives, U. S., November 1, 2017. Whereas the People’s Republic of China assumed the exercise of sovereignty over the Hong Kong Special Administra- tive Region 20 years ago, on July 1, 1997; Whereas the Joint Declaration between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and the Govern- ment of the People’s Republic of China on the Question of the Hong Kong (in this resolution referred to as the ‘‘Joint Declaration’’) required China’s National People’s Congress (NPC) to pass the ‘‘Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Re- public of China’’ (in this resolution referred to as the ‘‘Basic Law’’) consistent with the obligations contained in the Joint Declaration, which was approved by the NPC on April 4, 1990; Whereas relations between the United States and Hong Kong are fundamentally based upon the continued maintenance of the ‘‘one country, two systems’’ policy stipulated in the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 (Public Law 102–383; 22 U.S.C. 5701 et seq.) and established by the Joint Declaration; Whereas under the ‘‘one country, two systems’’ policy estab- lished by the Joint Declaration, Hong Kong ‘‘will enjoy a high degree of autonomy except in foreign and defense 2 affairs’’ and ‘‘will be vested with executive, legislative and independent judicial power including that of final adju- dication’’; Whereas Hong Kong’s autonomy under the ‘‘one country, two systems’’ policy, as demonstrated by its highly developed rule of law, independent judiciary,
    [Show full text]
  • Freedom in the World 2018 Hong Kong
    Hong Kong * Page 1 of 9 Published on Freedom House (https://freedomhouse.org) Home > Hong Kong * Hong Kong * Country: Hong Kong * Year: 2018 Freedom Status: Partly Free Political Rights: 5 Civil Liberties: 2 Aggregate Score: 59 Freedom Rating: 3.5 Overview: The people of Hong Kong, a special administrative region of China, have traditionally enjoyed substantial civil liberties and the rule of law under their local constitution, the Basic Law. However, the chief executive and half of the Legislative Council are chosen through indirect electoral systems that favor pro-Beijing interests, and the territory’s freedoms and autonomy have come under threat in recent years due to growing political and economic pressure from the mainland. Trend Arrow: Hong Kong received a downward trend arrow due to the expulsion of four prodemocracy lawmakers from the legislature, jail sentences against protest leaders, and other apparent efforts by pro-Beijing authorities to stamp out a movement calling for local self- determination. Political Rights and Civil Liberties: POLITICAL RIGHTS: 15 / 40 (−1) A. ELECTORAL PROCESS: 2 / 12 (−1) https://freedomhouse.org/print/50009 3/26/2018 Hong Kong * Page 2 of 9 A1. Was the current head of government or other chief national authority elected through free and fair elections? 0 / 4 Under 2010 electoral reforms, the chief executive, who serves a five-year term, is chosen by a 1,200-member election committee. Some 200,000 “functional constituency” voters—representatives of elite business and social sectors, many with close Beijing ties—elect 900 of the committee’s members, and the remaining 300 consist of Legco members, Hong Kong delegates to China’s National People’s Congress (NPC), religious representatives, and Hong Kong members of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), a Chinese government advisory body.
    [Show full text]
  • Six-Monthly Report on Hong Kong 1 July to 31 December 2016
    THE SIX-MONTHLY REPORT ON HONG KONG 1 JULY TO 31 DECEMBER 2016 Deposited in Parliament by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 24 FEBRUARY 2017 1 Contents FOREWORD .............................................................................................................. 4 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 7 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ELECTIONS ...................................................................... 7 Confirmation Form...................................................................................................... 8 Allegations of manipulation and intimidation .............................................................. 9 Sixth Legislative Council .......................................................................................... 10 Swearing-in of legislators ......................................................................................... 10 Judicial reviews ........................................................................................................ 10 Legislative Council adjournments ............................................................................. 11 Court hearing and NPCSC interpretation of the Basic Law ...................................... 11 Outcome of judicial proceedings .............................................................................. 14 Further legal action..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • China and the Hong Kong High Court Issue Decisions on Legislative Council Controversy (Update)
    CRS INSIGHT China and the Hong Kong High Court Issue Decisions on Legislative Council Controversy (Update) November 15, 2016 (IN10605) | Related Author Michael F. Martin | Michael F. Martin, Specialist in Asian Affairs ([email protected], 7-2199) On November 7, 2016, China's National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) issued a decision concerning the oaths that Hong Kong officials, including legislators, must take before assuming office. Eight days later, Hong Kong's High Court determined that two "pro-democracy" members-elect of Hong Kong's Legislative Council (Legco), Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching, had "declined" to take the required oath on October 12, 2016, and are therefore "disqualified from assuming the office of a member of the Legco." The NPCSC and High Court decisions may lead to efforts to invalidate the oaths taken by 13 other Legco members. With China having guaranteed Hong Kong a "high degree of autonomy" for 50 years after Hong Kong's return to Chinese sovereignty in 1997, the decisions raise questions about the autonomy of Hong Kong's judicial system and the future of democracy in Hong Kong. This growing controversy may be of interest to Congress as the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 (22 USC 66, P.L. 102-383) states that it is U.S. policy to support democratization in Hong Kong and the preservation of its "high degree of autonomy." Specifics of the NPCSC's Decision The NPCSC's decision, purportedly interpreting Article 104 of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative
    [Show full text]
  • The Growth of “Localism” in Hong Kong
    Current affairs China perspectives The Growth of “Localism” in Hong Kong A New Path for the Democracy Movement? YING-HO KWONG series of political protests in recent years, including localist rallies maintain harmonious relations, and supported the reversion of sovereignty for the June 4 Massacre, anti-parallel trading protests, and the Mong from Britain to China after 1997 under the principle of “One Country, Two AKok Riot, have triggered concerns over the development of “localism” Systems.” (4) In fact, Hong Kong’s democrats have always been divided by (bentu zhuyi 本土主義 ) in Hong Kong. For decades, traditional pan-demo - ideological differences, but have sought room for co-operation on political cratic parties ( fan minzhupai 泛民主派 ) have been struggling with the Chi - issues. The collaboration among democrats strengthened during and after nese government over political development. Although many of them have the Tiananmen Massacre. During the 1989 democracy movement in China, persistently bargained with the Beijing leaders, progress towards democracy Hong Kong democrats formed the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patri - remains stagnant. Thus, Hong Kong’s democrats have been beset by “tran - otic Democratic Movements in China to support the Beijing protesters. In sition fatigue,” which commonly exists in hybrid regimes that combine both the meantime, disagreements among democrats generally decreased be - democratic and authoritarian elements. (1) A growing number of Hong Kong cause the majority shared the common goal of supporting democratic de - people, especially youngsters, have become impatient, disappointed, and velopment in China against the bloody clampdown by the authorities. (5) sceptical towards the existing pan-democratic parties, and have shifted into The wave of democracy movements further intensified after 1997.
    [Show full text]
  • “Localism” in Hong Kong a New Path for the Democracy Movement?
    China Perspectives 2016/3 | 2016 China’s Policy in the China Seas The Growth of “Localism” in Hong Kong A New Path for the Democracy Movement? Ying-ho Kwong Electronic version URL: http://journals.openedition.org/chinaperspectives/7057 DOI: 10.4000/chinaperspectives.7057 ISSN: 1996-4617 Publisher Centre d'étude français sur la Chine contemporaine Printed version Date of publication: 1 September 2016 Number of pages: 63-68 ISSN: 2070-3449 Electronic reference Ying-ho Kwong, « The Growth of “Localism” in Hong Kong », China Perspectives [Online], 2016/3 | 2016, Online since 01 September 2016, connection on 14 September 2020. URL : http:// journals.openedition.org/chinaperspectives/7057 © All rights reserved Current affairs China perspectives The Growth of “Localism” in Hong Kong A New Path for the Democracy Movement? YING-HO KWONG series of political protests in recent years, including localist rallies maintain harmonious relations, and supported the reversion of sovereignty for the June 4 Massacre, anti-parallel trading protests, and the Mong from Britain to China after 1997 under the principle of “One Country, Two AKok Riot, have triggered concerns over the development of “localism” Systems.” (4) In fact, Hong Kong’s democrats have always been divided by (bentu zhuyi 本土主義 ) in Hong Kong. For decades, traditional pan-demo - ideological differences, but have sought room for co-operation on political cratic parties ( fan minzhupai 泛民主派 ) have been struggling with the Chi - issues. The collaboration among democrats strengthened during and after nese government over political development. Although many of them have the Tiananmen Massacre. During the 1989 democracy movement in China, persistently bargained with the Beijing leaders, progress towards democracy Hong Kong democrats formed the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patri - remains stagnant.
    [Show full text]
  • Street Occupations, Neglected Democracy, and Contested Neoliberalism in Hong Kong
    Street Occupations in Hong Kong 101 Street Occupations, Neglected Democracy, and Contested Neoliberalism in Hong Kong Miguel A. Martínez* he Umbrella Movement (UM) is the conventional label applied to the street occupations that took place in Hong Kong (HK) between September 28 and December 15, 2014. Many participants Talso called it the Umbrella Revolution (Veg 2016, 680). UM activists strove for HK citizens’ right to universal suffrage applicable to the election of the chief executive and the whole legislature. The HK miniconstitution, or Ba- sic Law, in force since the return of the former British colony to People’s Republic of China (PRC) sovereignty in 1997, expressed the same goal as an “ultimate aim” to be implemented “in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress” (J. Ng 2016, 56).1 However, despite the continu- ous pressure exerted by the pan-democratic camp, the HK government has postponed the regulation and implementation of universal suffrage to date. With these promises and pressures in sight, a process of electoral reform was launched by the HK Special Administrative Region (SAR) govern- ment in 2013. To the disappointment of the pan-democrats’ aspirations, the electoral reform was substantially constrained by two documents issued by the Chinese central government in June and August 2014. In a white paper issued in June, the central authorities asserted their absolute power to interpret the Basic Law. In August, the same authorities delivered their interpretation of the electoral reform and set up a nomination committee following the model of the already existing Election Committee.2 The only novelty introduced consisted of the public voting on the two to three candidates standing for the chief executive role previously nominated.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Political Screening in Hong Kong'
    ‘Political screening in Hong Kong’ The disqualification of candidates and lawmakers ahead of the March by-elections Hong Kong Watch 1 Foreword by Sir Malcolm Rifkind, QC “This Report makes very disturbing reading. In a measured, thoughtful and factual way it demonstrates that the obligations that the Chinese Government accepted in 1997 are being eroded. The steps being taken as regards disqualification of candidates are not only unacceptable. They reinforce the concern, that has already been expressed, that there may be a strategy to diminish Hong Kong’s autonomy in a step by step process over the years. Such measures do not go unnoticed and are leading to growing criticism and controversy not just from the people of Hong Kong but, also, from Hong Kong’s and China’s friends throughout the world.” Sir Malcolm Rifkind QC Sir Malcolm Rifkind, QC is a patron of Hong Kong Watch, who served as the United Kingdom’s Foreign Secretary from 1995- 1997 and Defence Secretary from 1992-1995. He held other senior positions in the Cabinet under Prime Ministers John Major and Margaret Thatcher. Hong Kong Watch 2 Foreword by Sir Geoffrey Nice, QC “This detailed Report demonstrates, line by line and law by law how things have developed for true democracy in Hong Kong once: ‘The two lawmakers from Youngspiration, Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai- Ching, referred to China as ‘Chee-na’ which is widely considered to be offensive. Yau Wai-Ching also referred to China with a swearword’ (see body of Report).’ Hong Kong Watch supports ‘one country, two systems’, not Hong Kong Independence and its Report does not divert from that position.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Development in Hong Kong: the Failure of Democratization
    Asian International Studies Review Vol. 17 No.2 (December 2016): 199-219 199 Received September 3, 2016 Revised November 7, 2016 Accepted December 1, 2016 Political Development in Hong Kong: The Failure of Democratization STEPHAN ORTMANN* Democratization in Hong Kong has come to a dead end fol- lowing the rejection of an electoral reform proposal by the Legislative Council on June 18, 2015. The measure was voted down because pan-democrats had been deeply disappointed by the fact that the reform proposal by the Chinese govern- ment would have only allowed pre-screened candidates and thus denied Hong Kongers a true choice. This followed more than two months of street occupations in which protesters demanded real universal suffrage to no avail. This paper seeks to demonstrate how the “China factor” has inhibited the de- mocratization process in four distinct phases of political deve- lopment. Since World War II, one of the main reasons for the lack of democratization was opposition by the Chinese govern- ment. In the late 1980s, the prospect of political reforms in China raised hopes for political change in Hong Kong. This was, however, crushed in 1989, which empowered a demo- cracy movement in Hong Kong. Since the transfer of power from Britain to China in 1997, despite protests for democracy, there has been very little progress toward meaningful demo- cratization. Moreover, in recent years, there has even been a slow process from liberal to illiberal authoritarianism which is accompanied by growing conflicts and even violence as poli- tical freedoms are being curtailed. Keywords: Hong Kong, China, Democratization, Lack of Autonomy, Liberal Authoritarianism, Illiberal Authoritarianism * Assistant Professor, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong; E-mail: [email protected] DOI: 10.16934/isr.17.2.201612.199 Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 02:56:27AM via free access 200 Political Development in Hong Kong I.
    [Show full text]