The Hong Kong government amends its judicial review writ aimed at keeping Sixtus Leung and Yau Wai-ching from taking their Legislative Council seats. (See a picture of the revised document.) The government is now asking the court to declare the Youngspiration duo’s offices vacant – making them non-members of the legislature.
Aside from having a ‘moving the goalposts’ feel about it, the revised writ escalates the Liaison Office/government’s obsessive and opportunistic persecution of the pair. Just when you thought the authorities couldn’t get any more extreme in their attempts to exploit the duo’s incorrect (plus ‘offensive’) oaths, they find a way to do it. There is no pretense now that this is an impartial process – Legco members have been allowed to re-take oaths before. This is setting attack dogs on two individuals who will not kowtow.
A request that the courts bar the two from the legislature is a blatant attack on the right of voters to elect representatives. (The perhaps enticing prospect of new elections for their seats, let alone other forms of backlash in Legco and elsewhere, is another matter.) It is also pushing the courts to take even bolder, more controversial, maybe unconstitutional, action. So it looks like the government is actually trying to goad the courts into rejecting the judicial review.
That would pave the way for an ‘interpretation’ by Beijing – a summary re-writing of part of the Basic Law to give it new, hitherto unheard-of, additional meaning. The outcome would be the banishment of those who advocate particular ideas and thoughts from political participation, while of course eroding the power of the local courts, not to say common sense.
Communist-style ‘rule by law’ and United Front mobs cheering. This is ugly to watch, yet much of the media bury this development in ‘Legco president U-turn’ stories. Maybe, after detailing Rurik Jutting’s videos, they wonder how much more readers can stomach.
Still don’t quite understand how they expect to take it to court for a settlement without violating article 77 of the Basic Flaw —
“Members of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be immune from legal action in respect of their statements at meetings of the Council.”
Even the government writ points out they are members of LegCo, and their oaths are indeed statements at a meeting of the Council. On top of that, they haven’t refused to take the oath, their oaths have been deemed invalid by other members.
Wah, so exciting! I just read the SCMPs live blog of the shenanigans at LegCo. Their 11.48am posting was entitled “Basic Law heavyweight Maria Tam weighs in”. Two jibes about her appearance in one headline plus a photo of the well-upholstered lady in question … but, alas, no mention of the fact that she was only made a member of the Basic Law Committee when she reached a certain weight …
If we are heading towards a by-election(s) I wonder whether the CCP will have, by then, played its trump card, CY Leung is standing again for CE ? That’s bound to be well received by the voters ! I foresee increased majorities, afterall, ‘rent-a-mob’ looks somewhat imported, so they won’t be voting. Looking forward to the sight of the Pro-Establishment camp being instructed to support 689 and show the love.
Attention spans that put gold-fish to shame…
The true and actual conflict is between paradigms, of course.
The WORST strategic mistake of the CCP or HK Gov would be to use their capture of Hong Kong institutions to openly and publicly suppress the political rights of local dissenters, and/or pass Art. 23.
In the event there is openly acknowledged contiguity between HKG and PRC in terms of national security institutions, the end of the CCP in its current form is assured. Lots of very unhappy people in China waiting for the civil leadership of internationally-connected fellow citizens who put the collective interests of society before their personal interests. The CCP cannot survive as little as .05% of its population in open non-violent protest (1MM people in the street in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and other major metropolis would do it). The CCP in its current form cannot survive the widespread and public ridicule of its historical narrative, which is holier than that of the Catholic Church (apologies for the pun).
History teaches us that command-and-control, hierarchical structures who attempt to control public discourse through ‘propaganda’ institutions (among other content creation and dissemination systems) cannot overcome an interdependent ecosystem that is based on a decentralised network of (relatively) enlightened, dedicated, and passionate individuals who share information and knowledge freely … as the War Party in the US of A is discovering at the mo.
No human construction can resist the power of the nature when the tsunami comes.
Similarly, no tyranny can survive the mass self-realisation of those whom it oppresses.
– M
I’m sorting of guessing that the Court will take a fence sitting approach, so don’t expect any resolution of these issues soon.
I see Hemmers is a bit confused about why anyone would find the term “Zhi Na” (Pinyin romanisation) offensive. Put simply it is considered offensive in Mainland China as, along with the term “sick man of Asia” and the (mythical) “No dogs or Chinese” sign, these are things that the Mainland’s nationalistic education teaches people is as special insult against China inflicted during the “Century of Humiliation”. Obviously HK localists know this and so take pleasure in tweaking the nationalists by using such terms – actually this has been a common feature of demonstrations aimed at the Mainland government in many parts of the world. I suspect many on the Beijing side are not really offended by such language but know their bosses will be, and hence the intensified mouth-frothing.
Word of the day: ‘contiguity’.
@Monkey: Unfortunately, your dream of “Lots of very unhappy people in China waiting for the civil leadership of internationally-connected fellow citizens who put the collective interests of society before their personal interests” shall never happen.
You forget (though I doubt it) that the Chinese diaspora are some of the most sycophantic, boot licking trolls on earth. ANYTHING to curry favor, possibly get some guanxi from a photo op with a CCP shoe polish haired goon, and “discuss” cooperative business deals for cultural exchange and understanding.
Doesn’t matter what form of government is holding the reins in the Middle Kingdom… just as long as some money can be made and some self importance can be bragged about.
Look at the recent events of commie thug flags flying high where they shouldn’t have been in Canada…pro Mao cultural revolution song reminiscing in Oz, etc etc.
Bottom line: Chinese are not only prolific sellouts, but they do it the most eagerly.
Written before this morning’s events but still relevant, I hope.
Before the election the official stated,
“You must make a declaration
Of loyalty to the nation.”
The pro-dems proudly retorted,
“Really ? Is that what you say?”
But were allowed to stand, anyway.
After a time, one candidate
Made the declaration clearly
But, the official said, insincerely
And he was rejected,
Not allowed to stand,
An undesirable, banned.
In certain places, here and elsewhere,
They viewed the action
With satisfaction
And said,
“Gotcha!”
Two candidates were elected,
With fervour fired,
Young, inspired.
Young – and reckless?
Maybe they were good at antics
But not at tactics.
They formally had to make
A solemn, empty oath
But they were loth.
They garbled it,
Mispronounced, disrespected.
And now they’re banned, though elected.
Government supporters walked out.
With legal art, the CE rushed
To have them crushed.
In certain places, here and elsewhere,
They viewed the action
With satisfaction
And said,
“Gotcha!”
Talk about a legal, constitutional, parliamentary and political mess, not once, but applied to itself ad infinitum. A judicial review of the CE’s judicial review, leading to…? The only elements missing are the much-trumpeted, but never revealed discovery of evil foreign forces (like democracy or logic) and dragging in the ICAC.
Jeffie Lam’s (a girl, by the way) video coverage of Legco today on SCMP is surprisingly worth watching.
Will Legco just carry blithely on? Will Jasper be recalled? Will non-kowtowers even be allowed to stand in the by-elections? Will the PLA be positioned on every corner? Hemlock’s right to take a cautious approach.
CN, No need to seek too far for cravenness, xenophobia, thuggishness and greed: just go to any NT village.
No-one understands that their actions will have consequences.
The Youngspiration members apparently thought that garbling the oath would have no consequences, that it would quietly be accepted.
The President of the Council at first acted properly. He rejected their oaths, as he had to, but with proper fairness said they would be given another opportunity.
The Chief Executive went to court, regardless of the consequences, political and legal, that his action will have, whether he wins or loses.
The pro-establishment members walked out last week, not realising that they would now logically have to walk out every week until the matter is settled.
The President of the Council reversed his decision, in order, he said, to ensure that Legco was not paralysed by another pro-establishment walk-out – not realising that it would be paralysed instead by the pro-dems.
And now?
Everyone is compelled to make things worse.
@Knownot –
I doubt this. They clearly hoped to provoke pro-Beijingers. I doubt they thought they would be as successful in doing so as they were, but they were clearly trying to provoke a response.
You or I might not find what they said offensive (there is no real difference between “Zhi Na” and “China”), but anyone who knows anything about the Mainland knows that anyone who has imbibed the nationalist education and propaganda put about there will flip their tops.
The compulsion emanates ultimately from the CCP and the leadership in Beijing, the people you describe aren’t trapped by fate or the logic of their positions, but by the dictates of a capricious and corrupt dictatorial government. The CE brought legal proceedings because that’s what his CCP paymasters wanted, the pro-Beijing lawmakers walked out because that’s what they’ve been essentially ordered to do by people whose authority comes ultimately from Beijing.
As for things becoming worse, they may do so, but it’s a result ultimately of the contradictions of Hong Kong’s position as a relatively-free colony owned by a totalitarian one-party state.