Conquer Club

HONG KONG—The integration of Hong Kong with mainland China was preordained in handover talks the U.K. held with Beijing in the 1980s. The year 2047 was the due date.

It is coming ahead of schedule.

Hong Kong, long an outpost of free trade and reliable courts beside Communist China, is coming under increasing pressure from Beijing and local leaders to mold itself in the mainland’s image. That is despite Beijing’s pledges to keep the city largely autonomous for half a century after the handover in 1997.

Legislators, publishers and journalists say freedom of expression is being restricted. Several candidates for Hong Kong’s legislative elections recently were disqualified from running because they advocated independence from China. Hong Kong authorities have issued warnings to educators to rein in young people’s interest in independence.

...

Anson Chan, a former Hong Kong chief secretary—the city’s No. 2 official—said in a recent speech that challenges to Hong Kong’s rule of law and civil liberties are coming “so thick and fast they no longer even seem to cause surprise.”

She cited threats to academic freedom at local universities, a series of violent attacks on local journalists and the disappearances of several book publishers who reappeared in the custody of mainland authorities.

...

Hong Kong’s leaders say the territory continues to enjoy a high degree of autonomy. It remains a bastion of freedom compared with the mainland, with street protests, open access to the internet and some newspapers that can be critical of mainland policies. China’s attempt to introduce an antisedition law in Hong Kong was shelved in 2003 after a half-million people took to the streets in protest.

...

In a sign of worries in the territory, the film “Ten Years,” a collection of vignettes that envisioned a politically circumscribed Hong Kong one decade from now, was a surprise success over the past year. In one vignette, mainland officials stage an assassination attempt to spur passage of a national-security law in Hong Kong. In another, a taxi driver who can’t speak Mandarin struggles to find business as the city’s native Cantonese language is relegated to second-class status.

Banned in the mainland, the movie won best film at the Hong Kong Film Awards. Many Hong Kong cinemas either didn’t screen it or didn’t add showings to meet demand. State broadcaster CCTV and Tencent Holdings Ltd. , the Chinese internet firm, pulled out of agreements to broadcast the awards in the mainland. CCTV, Tencent and the award organizers didn’t respond to requests for comment.

...

Faced with mounting opposition, Beijing decided that doling out economic favors had run its course and that it had to get more visibly involved in Hong Kong, Chinese political scholars say.

“They gave out a lot of candy, a lot of sugar,” said Ding Xueliang, a social scientist at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. “Finally they realized they’d given so much, and they still hadn’t fixed things. So they have to take stronger measures.”

Beijing issued a policy paper in 2014 emphasizing limits to Hong Kong’s autonomy. It has brought Hong Kong legislators to Shenzhen for talks on the territory’s political system, led by high-level mainland officials. During the mass street protests of 2014, Shenzhen became a command center, run by security and political officials from Beijing.

Mr. Ding estimates that China likely has more than 100,000 people in Hong Kong who help it monitor the city.

An official at the central Chinese government’s liaison office in Hong Kong declined to comment for this article.

Hong Kongers are sensitive about encroachment by mainland law enforcement. Last year, several Hong Kong booksellers disappeared after publishing thinly sourced, salacious tell-alls about China’s leaders. They turned up later in detention in mainland China.

In a June press conference after his release, one of the booksellers, Lam Wing-kee, alleged that he was abducted at a Shenzhen border crossing and held by a special task force of the central Chinese government for eight months, without charges. Previous statements that Mr. Lam and four similarly detained colleagues had made from China were scripted and made under duress, he said.

Mr. Lam said one colleague, Lee Bo, was spirited away directly from Hong Kong, even though Chinese law enforcement is prohibited from operating there under the city’s autonomy arrangement.

Hong Kong’s top official, Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying, said he would write a letter to the mainland government to express concern and called for tweaks to the system for notifying the government when a Hong Kong resident is detained in the mainland—gestures pro-democracy lawmakers and activists criticized as underwhelming.

The Chinese Ministry of Public Security acknowledged “inadequacy” in the notification mechanism between Hong Kong and China.

Mr. Lee has said he visited the mainland of his own free will to aid in an investigation. He couldn’t be reached for comment.

...

The Chinese government or mainland corporations now have direct control or stakes in eight of Hong Kong’s 26 mainstream media outlets, according to the Hong Kong Journalists Association. That has contributed to a steady erosion of press freedom, the association said.

It cited the purchase of the South China Morning Post by Chinese internet giant Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. late last year. Alibaba Executive Vice Chairman Joseph Tsai said editorial independence would be respected.

He also said in an interview with a Hong Kong news website that coverage of China was “neither complete nor healthy” because newspapers tended to “carry the Western angle.” The Post, he said, would put out “another angle.”

...

In August, Hong Kong’s education department said that secondary-school teachers advocating Hong Kong independence could have their licenses revoked. Mr. Leung, the Hong Kong chief executive, compared teenagers’ interest in independence to drug use.

Many of Hong Kong’s newly elected legislators disagree.

“We Hong Kong people need to seize the opportunity to decide our own future,” said 25-year-old Yau Wai-ching, one of the new legislators, suggesting the tension is unlikely to dissipate soon. “Self-determination is our inherent right.”

It was embarrassing to watch. “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung and Abraham Razack fought over a microphone. One newly elected young localist waved a protest banner like she was doing a striptease and used what sounded like swear words in reading her oath. Another pronounced China as “Chee-na”, a variation on the derogatory term Shina used by Japanese occupation forces during the second world war.

To top it all off, most of the pan-democrat lawmakers tore up their voting papers for electing the Legco president and threw the pieces into the air like confetti.

When Sixtus Baggio Leung Chun-hang of the localist party Youngspiration was asked why he said “Chee-na” when he delivered his oath in English, he excused himself by claiming he had “an Ap Lei Chau accent”. There is no such accent, any more than there is a “Hong Kong nation”, a fictitious entity to which Leung and fellow localist Yau Wai-ching swore allegiance in their oath.

...

Some of us had hoped that the youngsters – the so-called umbrella soldiers – would learn to act like adults when they formed political parties and entered the Legislative Council. As it turned out, entering the new legislature was more like the first day of kindergarten. Civic Passion’s Cheng Chung-tai was the only localist who read the oath as it was written. “I don’t think the way I take the oath today would amount to any effective resistance,” he said.

Exactly, a voice of reason! Don’t sweat over the procedural stuff. By threatening to paralyse Legco, young radicals will just further delegitimise a legislature for which many people already have a low regard. They have to decide whether they just want to crash the party or do something useful.

Video: Democratic lawmakers stage protests and alter oaths as new term kicks off at Hong Kong legislature

Pro-democracy lawmakers staged protests and altered their oaths as the new term of the Legislative Council kicked off on Wednesday.

Yau Wai-ching of Youngspiration said: “I, Yau Wai-ching, do solemnly swear that I would be faithful and bear true allegiance to the Hong Kong nation. And we will to the best [sic] protect and defend the values of Hong Kong.”

Legislative Council Secretary Chen Wei-on told Yau to retake the oath. Yau, on the second attempt, referred to the “People’s Republic of China” as the “People’s Ref*cking of Chee-na.”

“Shina” – pronounced “chee-na” – was an archaic Japanese name for China. The meaning of the word was neutral, but it became a derogatory term for Japanese people to refer to Chinese people during the Sino-Japanese wars. Although the term was later dropped and replaced by “Chugoku,” Shina still bears an offensive meaning to most Chinese people.

Chen told Yau that Yau’s “Hong Kong is not China” flag made him “doubt that [Yau] understood the affirmation” and therefore he could not accept her oath.

Yau’s party colleague, Baggio Leung Chun-hang, took a similar oath on his first attempt, saying that he would serve the “Hong Kong nation.”

Chen, the legislature’s secretary, told Leung to return to the seat, but the lawmaker refused. Leung then donned a flag that read: “Hong Kong is not China” as he retook the oath.

On the second attempt, Leung read “China” as “Chee-na.” Chen also asked Leung to return to the seat as he could not administer Leung’s affirmation owing to his flag.

Independent lawmaker Lau Siu-lai read an edited version of the oath on the first attempt. Chen asked Lau to retake it.

On the second attempt, Lau read the oath in slow motion. Junius Ho Kwan-yiu, a pro-Beijing lawmaker, told Lau to stop as the process took ten minutes.

Edward Yiu Chung-yim, representing the Architectural, Surveying, Planning and Landscape functional constituency, added the phrase “for democracy and for Hong Kong’s sustainable development” to his oath.

Chen asked Yiu to retake it. On the second attempt, Yiu read his own version and was told again to retake it. However, the lawmaker refused and walked away.

Nathan Law of Demosistō said: “This sacred ceremony [of oath-taking] has become a tool for the authorities trying to suppress public opinion. You can even destroy this body [of mine], but you can never imprison my mind.”

Law questioned the power of the Legislative Council Secretariat and whether the three lawmakers whose oaths were rejected would be allowed to participate in the election of LegCo president.

Chen asked Law to return to his seat, though Law refused. The oath-taking ceremony paused as Law refused to leave the stage until Chen had given him an answer.

Other pro-democracy lawmakers who protested during the oath-taking included Leung Kwok-hung, Ray Chan Chi-chuen, Helena Wong Pik-wan and Shiu Ka-chun.

Leung Kwok-hung, nicknamed Long Hair, brought to the stage a yellow umbrella that symbolised the 2014 pro-democracy Umbrella Movement. He said before taking the oath: “I want genuine universal suffrage. Leung Chun-ying, step down.”

Leung read the oath at an unusual pace so that the full names of China and Hong Kong became “China…People’s, Republic, Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region” as the lawmaker swore to serve the territory.

Leung said after the oath: “Withdraw the August 31 decision of the Chinese National People’s Congress. I want genuine universal suffrage. People will have self-determination with no approval from the Communist Party.”

The lawmaker did not sign the oath. He tore up a prop representing the August 31, 2014 decision of the Chinese National People’s Congress – the decision denied open elections for the chief executive.

Ray Chan Chi-chuen of the People Power party said before taking the oath: “Taking oaths is the affair of the Legislative Council. The government is not allowed to interfere in LegCo affairs.”

After the oath, Chan said: “I am a Hongkonger. I want genuine universal suffrage. Filibustering is to resist evil laws. Leung Chun-ying, step down.”

Fernando Cheung Chiu-hung of the Labour Party ripped up a Basic Law prop after taking his oath.

Helena Wong Pik-wan of the Democratic Party said: “Retract the August 31 decision of the Chinese National People’s Congress. The Water Supplies Department must examine all water supply in Hong Kong.”

Eddie Chu Hoi-dick said: “Democratic self-determination. Autocracy will die. Andrew Leung Kwan-yuen must not be the president [of the Legislative Council].”

Lam Cheuk-ting of the Democratic Party said: “Combat corruption. ‘CY Wolf’ step down.”

Social welfare functional lawmaker Shiu Ka-chun said: “Umbrella Movement might have ended but it did not collapse. We will put up resistance. We are back.”

Ann Chiang Lai-wan of the pro-Beijing party DAB was the only lawmaker who took the oath in Mandarin.

Pro-Beijing newspaper Ta Kung Pao cited “authoritative sources” on Tuesday as saying that incoming lawmakers may not be able to take office if they do not take the oath properly. It said the government was prepared to start legal battles and apply for an interpretation of the Basic Law by the Chinese National People’s Congress if a court decision cannot be made.

macbone wrote:As far as the major newspapers and TV stations go in Hong Kong now, they pretty much all want to avoid offending China as much as possible.

Honestly, though, Hong Kong has more pressing needs than universal suffrage (as much as it pains me to say that). Housing prices are out of control. People are living in coffin homes or sleeping in 24-hour McDonalds due to the insane rents. The scandal of lead in water hasn't really gone away. These are the issues that these reformers need to focus on. Legco is mostly a show now. For Hong Kong to experience real change, these folks need to address people's real needs. Voting is great, but lead-free water and affordable housing are far more important to the majority of Hong Kongers.

Hong Kong democracy group asks if China has influenced NZ

Deputy Prime Minister Bill English has cancelled a meeting with two prominent Hong Kong pro-democracy figures this week in an apparent snub.

Anson Chan was the head of the Hong Kong Civil service during the Island's transition from British to Chinese control.

She and political activist Martin Lee arrived in New Zealand this week after meeting with senior Australian Government figures to discuss support for democracy in the former British colony.

However, on Monday night, Mr English cancelled the Tuesday morning meeting he had agreed with the pair.

Mr English's office did not accept an offer to reschedule a meeting any time in the following week.

Mr Lee said it was odd that Mr English cancelled the meeting.

"Not only did we not have a meeting with the deputy prime minister, we did not have a meeting with any government minister, any member of the Naitonal party, but we had a meeting with the Green Party - Mr Kennedy Graham - and Mr David Shearer, the Labour Party spokesman on foreign affairs.

"In Australia we saw Julie Bishop, the foreign affairs minister, and then the attorney general, senator George Brandis, and then Anson Chan and I actually appeared before the joint parliamentary committee on foreign affairs. And in New Zealand, none of that kind."

Last time the group had visited the United States, they had met with Vice President Joe Biden, Mr Lee said.

He said, though, that whenever he travelled outside Hong Kong, Chinese embassies worked very hard behind the scenes to persuade people not to talk to him.

Australian National University emeritus professor Geremie Barme said it was likely the Chinese ambassador in New Zealand had put pressure on the government not to meet with Ms Chan and Mr Lee.

Mr Barme said it was a depressing development for New Zealand given the pair met with top Australian government officials, including the foreign minister.

It came a week after it emerged Defence Minister Gerry Brownlee had made comments over the South China Sea dispute at a forum in Beijing.

Mr Brownlee denied reports he had been rebuked by China over the comments.

In February, New Zealand urged Chinese restraint after Beijing's apparent deployment of an advanced missile system on a South China Sea island, while Beijing said New Zealand's proposal was "unconstructive".

Mr Lee said his group's message to the Australian politicians, and what they would have told Mr English, was that China had reneged on its promise of democracy to Hong Kong.

It was in New Zealand and Australia's best interests to make sure any agreement with China would be honoured, he said.

"Because without democracy Hong Kong people cannot be masters of our own house as promised," he said.

A spokeswoman for Mr English told RNZ on Tuesday that no meeting with Anson Chan or Mr Lee was ever agreed. However, she said yesterday that she had been mistaken and acknowledged there was a scheduled meeting with the pair and it was cancelled.

Mr Lee said the way to deal with China was not to come to them on your knees.

"Because if you're on your knees, that's not good enough, they want you to kowtow next. And so the realistic way of dealing with China is to stand firm on principles, and in fact the Chinese government will respect you for that. They may not like it, but they will respect you for that."

Mr Barme said it was a slippery slope if New Zealand started giving in to China's demands on minor things like this.

Mr English declined RNZ's request for an interview.

Hong Kong police fired pepper spray and protesters threw bottles and road cones in clashes near China's representative office on Sunday night where activists had gathered to demonstrate against Beijing's attempts to stop a fledgling independence movement.

A ruling on Monday from a top committee of China's parliament, the National People's Congress, is expected to effectively bar the recently elected lawmakers Yau Wai-ching, and Baggio Leung from taking office in Hong Kong's legislature.

The pair pledged allegiance to the "Hong Kong nation" and displayed a "Hong Kong is not China" banner during a swearing-in ceremony for the city's legislative council in October. Their oaths were not accepted and their right to re-take them is being challenged in the local courts by the Hong Kong government.

The situation is seen by many of Hong Kong's legal and political elite as one of the biggest tests the financial hub has faced since its handover to China nearly two decades ago, with some fearing its independent rule of law is under threat.

Hundreds of police, some with riot shields and batons, and some behind temporary metal barricades, were seen near the central government's Liaison Office, traditionally well protected by local police, and viewed by many as a symbol of Beijing's increasing influence on the free-wheeling city.

As police reinforced their lines, protesters took their own precautions, some donning masks and goggles and wrapping cling film over their eyes to protect against pepper spray.

At least one protester was arrested. About 20 were hit by pepper spray - some protecting themselves with umbrellas, the symbol of the 79-day democracy protests in Hong Kong in 2014.

"This is about our future," said one woman, while others chanted for independence, long a taboo subject in the global financial hub and anathema to Beijing's Communist Party leaders.

The standing committee of China's parliament, the National People's Congress, this weekend discussed invoking a rarely used power to interpret Hong Kong's mini "Basic Law" constitution to stop Yau, 25, and Leung, 30, from taking office.

China Central Television quoted national lawmakers as saying the pair were a threat to China's "sovereignty and security".

"If this kind of situation continues it will harm the immediate interests of the people of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the interests of national development. The central government cannot sit by indifferently," they were quoted as saying.

As such, an NPC interpretation was "very timely and extremely necessary", the report said.

Britain returned Hong Kong to Chinese control in 1997 under a "one country, two systems" formula that gave the territory wide-ranging autonomy, including judicial freedom.

Martin Lee, a veteran pro-democratic figure and barrister, said Beijing's move would bind the hands of the Hong Kong court that will hear the government's challenge against the pair.

"(It) makes it impossible for the court to exercise its own judgment," he said.

The Hong Kong Bar Association has said an intervention by Beijing now would deal a "severe blow" to the city's judicial independence and undermine international confidence in Hong Kong's autonomy.

Earlier on Sunday, thousands - including Yau and Leung -marched to the city's financial district. Several hundred then pressed on to Beijing's Liaison Office. Organizers put the numbers at 11,000; police said 8,000 turned out.

"This is the beginning of the end of Hong Kong"

The ‘one country, two systems’ principle and the Sino-British Joint Declaration are now completely shattered and irrelevant

Claudia Mo

The Chinese government’s decision to bar two elected lawmakers from taking up their seats marks the beginning of the end of Hong Kong.

Samuel Johnson once said, “Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel”. And today China has said that in Hong Kong, patriotism is so vital that it trumps freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of thought, which are all now completely irrelevant.

By preventing the two pro-independence politicians from taking office, the Chinese government has opened the door to disqualify anyone from Hong Kong’s government if they are determined to not be loyal to Beijing.

This sets a very, very dangerous precedent because China has now started to form a habit of ruling Hong Kong by decree. Rule of law has become nonexistent in Hong Kong and there is no telling how that’s going to affect the confidence of foreign investors. We have to plug the dyke, but there’s nothing Hong Kong people can do and that explains all the fear, anger, resentment and frustration you now see in the city.

Of course, according to the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s mini-constitution, the power of interpretation is vested in Beijing, but that sort of power should not be used lightly. Every policeman has the power to stop you in the street and haul you off to the station if you’re acting suspiciously, but no one expects every policemen to do that lightly. Beijing is abusing its power.

Beijing loyalists in Hong Kong’s legislature will say, ‘We need to protect the integrity of the motherland, you’re not allowed to say things like ‘Hong Kong is not China.’’ They worry these sentiments will spread to places like Tibet and Xinjiang, western Chinese provinces with large populations of ethnic minorities and a history of chafing under Beijing’s yoke.

The Chinese government never promised “one country, two systems” to Tibet or Xinjiang, but that promise was made to Hong Kong. However, that and the Sino-British Joint Declaration, which sought to safeguard freedoms in the former colony, is now completely shattered and has become irrelevant. China’s mandarins now behave exactly like the Big Brother in George Orwell’s 1984. Whatever and whenever they find something politically incorrect, they will just change it and make it bend to their will.

The oath-taking saga is merely an excuse to make sure Hong Kong will be reined in. Chinese officials needed an issue and pounced at the first opportunity, because in Beijing’s eyes Hong Kong has become uncontrollable and disobedient, especially after the umbrella movement.

This is a very frightening trend that shows Beijing will interpret Hong Kong laws any time it wants. Anytime they feel parts of the Basic Law are not up to their current standards of political correctness, they will change it and tell Hong Kong courts to obey.

This move is not only a blow to our legislature, but also local courts as well. What are our judges for if Beijing steps in whenever it wants?

Today Beijing talks about anti-independence, tomorrow it talks about anti-self-determination and the day after it can talk about anti-democracy altogether.

While I have met some young people who have foreign passports who want to stay and fight for Hong Kong, they have a safety net and can leave whenever they want. I’m very worried about the young who can’t afford to leave and have no choice but to fight on against extremely difficult odds.

But we still need to fight, because if we don’t, we will definitely never get what we want.

Claudia Mo is a member of Hong Kong’s legislative council and founding member of the Civic Party.

mrswdk wrote:What a load of nonsense. 'One country, two systems' does not mean 'HK doing anything it pleases irrespective of Beijing'. It means HK is allowed to follow a number of unique rules, procedures and institutions in the short-term following the region's return to China, within tolerances set out in the Sino-British Declaration. The Beijing ruling which has barred those two children from office does not infringe on the Sino-British Joint Declaration in any way, as the author of your article admits.

In fact, the first point of the Sino-British Declaration states that 'national unity... will be upheld'. The two legislators who used their swearing in ceremony as an opportunity to deride Beijing, deride the mainland in general, and exhibit support for some notion of Hong Kong as an independent nation state sought to deliberately undermine national unity. They had no right to use official positions to behave in such a manner, and in fact by doing so they were the ones violating the Sino-British Joint Declaration. Consequently, they have ended up barred from office. The vast majority of lawmakers capable of conducting themselves with diplomacy, respect and without recourse to inflammatory behavior are still in office and will doubtless be productive public servants.

Dukasaur wrote:

mrswdk wrote:What a load of nonsense. 'One country, two systems' does not mean 'HK doing anything it pleases irrespective of Beijing'. It means HK is allowed to follow a number of unique rules, procedures and institutions in the short-term following the region's return to China, within tolerances set out in the Sino-British Declaration. The Beijing ruling which has barred those two children from office does not infringe on the Sino-British Joint Declaration in any way, as the author of your article admits.

In fact, the first point of the Sino-British Declaration states that 'national unity... will be upheld'. The two legislators who used their swearing in ceremony as an opportunity to deride Beijing, deride the mainland in general, and exhibit support for some notion of Hong Kong as an independent nation state sought to deliberately undermine national unity. They had no right to use official positions to behave in such a manner, and in fact by doing so they were the ones violating the Sino-British Joint Declaration. Consequently, they have ended up barred from office. The vast majority of lawmakers capable of conducting themselves with diplomacy, respect and without recourse to inflammatory behavior are still in office and will doubtless be productive public servants.

(3) The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will be vested with executive, legislative and independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication. The laws currently in force in Hong Kong will remain basically unchanged.

(5) The current social and economic systems in Hong Kong will remain unchanged, and so will the life-style. Rights and freedoms, including those of the person, of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of travel, of movement, of correspondence, of strike, of choice of occupation, of academic research and of religious belief will be ensured by law in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Private property, ownership of enterprises, legitimate right of inheritance and foreign investment will be protected by law.

(11) The maintenance of public order in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will be the responsibility of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

macbone wrote:Ha! Someone next to me just mentioned Trump, actually. I'm waiting to hear Jane Goodall speak in a little while, and two HKU students next to me were talking about how we can't let Trump destroy everything. =)

They're having a serious discussion about democracy. Well, that's some hope for Hong Kong, anyway.

First two, now 15 Hong Kong lawmakers face prospect of being expelled from Legislative Council

Wang Zhenmin comments on legislators ‘messing up’ their oaths, while former Beijing official lambasts prosecution and judiciary for failing to live up to people’s expectations

From just two, now up to 15 Hong Kong lawmakers could be at risk of losing their seats after two Beijing spokesmen catalogued eight types of “insincere oath-taking” and delivered a stinging rebuke against the city’s legal officials.

The warning came two days after China’s top legislative body intervened in the city’s legislative oath row in a move hailed by pro-establishment politicians but criticised by the legal profession as a challenge to the city’s judicial independence.

At a seminar in Shenzhen, Chen Zuoer, former deputy director of Beijing’s Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, lambasted the city’s prosecution and judiciary, accusing them of “not living up to people’s expectations” in defending breaches of national security and making it “almost cost-free to oppose and commit crime against Beijing.”

Asked to elaborate later, he said: “There were a lot of cases in the last two or three years. From the storming of the PLA barracks, to the Occupy protests, the Mong Kok riots, there were a series of such cases.”

While the judiciary declined to comment, the Justice Department said it would “control criminal prosecutions, free from any interference” in accordance with the Basic Law.

The department had to consider all relevant laws before proceeding with prosecution. And while the end outcome might not be consistent with “so-called general public expectation” – which in itself could be diverse and “universal” – it had always handled all criminal cases in a fair, impartial and professional manner, it said.

Chen also chided the city’s legal profession for opposing the interpretation either because it “lacked or had a different understanding or it was using the law as a tool for political struggle”.

Legal sector lawmaker Dennis Kwok said he welcomed dialogue with Chen if he did not understand the sector’s traditions.

Chief Secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor declined to say if the government would mount judicial reviews against lawmakers whose oaths might not have complied with Beijing’s ruling. She would only say: “The government is studying the possible impact of the interpretation on other lawmakers.”

Last month, controversy erupted after pro-independence lawmakers Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching swore allegiance to a “Hong Kong nation” and insulted China during their oath-taking. They were taken to court by the government in a bid to ban them from Legco. The court has yet to deliver its judgment.

On Monday, the National People’s Congress Standing Committee issued an interpretation of Basic Law Article 104, ruling that lawmakers must be “sincere” in taking their oaths of office and those who do not comply face instant disqualification.

Speaking at the same seminar, Wang Zhenmin, legal department head of Beijing’s liaison office and a former law dean of Tsinghua University, said 15 lawmakers had “messed up” their oaths. He did not name them.

Among the 14 identified by the Post, all said they had taken their oaths solemnly and sincerely, and questioned Chen’s authority to cite categories of misconduct.

Chen, now president of the semi-official Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macau Studies think tank, also said there were “a lot of people” who did not meet the legal requirements.

He listed eight types of “insincere swearing-in” last month, such as “adding things to the ceremony ... or spending 12 minutes to finish the oath” – a reference to localist Lau Siu-lai.

Chen said: “With the central government’s interpretation, there are clear legal provisions to follow in tackling these acts that were insincere and not solemn.”

“All Chinese, all Hong Kong residents are watching, and will offer their strong support to Hong Kong’s executive, legislative and judicial branches as they exercise justice with the ‘sharp weapon’ provided by Beijing to restore Legco to normality and order,” he said.

Asked if he believed up to 15 lawmakers should be disqualified, Chen said the city’s authorities were better placed to decide. The fight against independence advocacy was “warfare that will be won”, he said.

In September, the pan-democrat and localist camps won 30 seats in Legco, while the pro-establishment camp grabbed 40.
Chinese University political scientist Ivan Choy Chi-keung warned it would be “unwise” for the authorities to expel half of the democrats.

“Mainstream public opinion has shown disfavour towards Leung and Yau already ... If Beijing is seeking to disqualify 15 lawmakers, it means they are not just fighting independence advocates, but launching a full-scale purge of dissident voices,” Choy said.

More sabre rattling from Beijing? Besides Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching, 13 other legislators may lose their seats because of their improper oath-taking.

That’s according to Wang Zhenmin, legal department head of Beijing’s liaison office.

If that’s the case, it means removing half the pan-democratic camp from the Legislative Council. While the prospect is no doubt appealing to Beijing, is it realistic?

If Beijing wants to declare war, it might as well kick out all the pan-democrats and localists from the legislature. The legal and political consequences would be just as dire whether you remove 15 or all 30 of them.

Beijing should quit while it’s still ahead. The latest interpretation by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on the oath-taking of principal officials may be controversial. But it is probably tolerated by many Hong Kong people, who have been genuinely turned off by the offensive and mindless antics of Leung and Yau. There is no dispute that the NPC interpretation will apply to both lawmakers-elect.

But with the other 13, it would be impossible to justify on any reasonable legal or political ground. Whether they swore only once or had to do it a second time, their oaths have been accepted by the Legco president and secretary-general. Basic Law Committee chairman Li Fei claims the NPC interpretation is retroactive, and so is applicable to them.

But the original text of the NPC judgment says nothing about it being retroactive. As a barrister friend has pointed out, there is no such thing as retroactivity in common law, and Article 8 of the Basic Law guarantees the continuity of the common law after China resumed sovereignty over Hong Kong in 1997.

My guess is that Beijing isn’t trying to remove those lawmakers at this time. Its warnings are directed not so much at them as at the Hong Kong government.

Chen Zuoer, former deputy director of Beijing’s Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, has blasted local prosecutors and judges for “not living up to people’s expectations” in defending breaches of national security and making it “almost cost-free to oppose and commit crimes against Beijing”.

As examples, he cited the storming of the PLA barracks in late 2013, the Occupy protests of 2014 and the Mong Kok riot earlier this year.

In other words, if you don’t do your job, we will do it for you.

mrswdk wrote:Short to medium term nothing changes. Long term Hong Kong transitions to being a proper Chinese city, not the outpost of the British empire that it still semi is.

If China invaded America, annexed Miami and then gave it back to America 150 years later operating under one party authoritarianism, would USG shrug and say 'k whatever Miami you guys just do what you wanna do, be your own city, do everything different to the rest of the country that's cool'? USG would not.

mrswdk wrote:Short to medium term nothing changes. Long term Hong Kong transitions to being a proper Chinese city, not the outpost of the British empire that it still semi is.

If China invaded America, annexed Miami and then gave it back to America 150 years later operating under one party authoritarianism, would USG shrug and say 'k whatever Miami you guys just do what you wanna do, be your own city, do everything different to the rest of the country that's cool'? USG would not.

macbone wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Short to medium term nothing changes. Long term Hong Kong transitions to being a proper Chinese city, not the outpost of the British empire that it still semi is.

If China invaded America, annexed Miami and then gave it back to America 150 years later operating under one party authoritarianism, would USG shrug and say 'k whatever Miami you guys just do what you wanna do, be your own city, do everything different to the rest of the country that's cool'? USG would not.

Yes. Hong Kong becoming a proper Chinese city = Hong Kong no longer being an international city

After the 150 years are up, China graciously gives Los Beijingles back to the US (remember, it was given to China)