Latest news with #Sino-BritishJointDeclaration
HKFP
3 days ago
- Politics
- HKFP
In deleted Ombudsman reports saga, silencing legislators hinders their ability to hold authorities to account
The saga of the deleted reports on the Ombudsman's website continues. So far, he has apparently refused to restore digital copies of pre-2023 investigation reports, annual reports, and other data for easy public access. The reasons provided for removing them (data overload, they're dated, government departments have accepted their recommendations, etc.) are generally unconvincing. In many cases, the problems that necessitated the investigations continue. Chief Executive John Lee pointed out that the Ombudsman is independent of the government. He 'expressed confidence that the Office of the Ombudsman will do its work effectively and address public concerns,' RTHK reported. The deleted reports saga raises significant issues about Hong Kong's constitutional system of dual accountability. According to Basic Law Article 43, the chief executive, who is the head of the government, is accountable both to the central government and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR). In their book, The Constitutional System of the Hong Kong SAR, law scholars Albert Chen and Yap Po Jen call this 'the most important and distinctive feature of the HKSAR's political system.' They go on to say: 'Insofar as the central authorities' interest in and views on Hong Kong's development converge with those of the general public in Hong Kong, there should be no conflict in the discharge of these dual roles. 'On the other hand, when there is a divergence in the interests of the central authorities in the HKSAR and the interests of Hong Kong as perceived by a majority of Hong Kong's population, the CE would be placed in an unenviable position' (emphasis mine). Chen and Yap write that it is not easy for the chief executive to retain the trust and confidence of both Beijing and the people of Hong Kong. This formulation recognises that there could be multiple understandings of the interests of Hong Kong: the central government's understandings, the local government's understandings, and understandings as perceived by most of the people of Hong Kong. These understandings might converge, or not. In the Ombudsman saga, likely only the local government's and the people of Hong Kong's understandings are involved. Chen and Yap point out that in Hong Kong's system, the executive and legislative authorities are expected to both 'coordinate with and check each other.' Both the Basic Law and the Sino-British Joint Declaration provide that 'the executive shall be accountable to the legislature.' That is, the Legislative Council (LegCo) should play a key role in holding the government to account. The chief executive acknowledged 'public concerns' and 'public debate' on the deleted Ombudsman reports. A handful of legislators have spoken up. One report identified six LegCo members who spoke out or raised questions: Michael Tien, Doreen Kong, Tik Chi-yuen, Tang Ka-piu, Eunice Yung, and Tommy Cheung. These are mainly pro-establishment patriots. Subsequently, the local media reported that authorities silenced LegCo on this issue. Authorities sent out 'warm reminders' that LegCo members should not 'follow up' or 'comment' on the Ombudsman saga. This gives the impression that LegCo is simply an extension of the government, speaking for the government only. What of its checking role? If, as Chen and Yap write, accountability to the HKSAR means accountability to the interests of Hong Kong as perceived by a majority of Hong Kong's population, why did the authorities silence LegCo? Perhaps they believe that silencing criticism is in the interests of the Hong Kong people, or authorities perceive that LegCo is insufficiently representative of the Hong Kong people and therefore should have no right to speak. This seems unlikely given the efforts the government made during the 2021 legislative elections to convince us that LegCo was representative. When authorities silence LegCo, who speaks for the interests of Hong Kong as perceived by a majority of the people? In the past, Hong Kongers have valued accountability, openness and transparency. Indeed, that is one reason why 55 to 60 per cent of voters consistently supported pan-democrats in elections when they had the opportunity. As late as 2018, the HKSAR government also declared that it supported these values. The Ombudsman's action seems to undermine them, arguably not in the interests of Hong Kong. An unanticipated consequence of the saga may be to boost the role and credibility of civil society in Hong Kong. The deleted reports are of considerable value to all those interested in public policy. Digital copies of all the Ombudsman's pre-2022 reports are available on the Wayback Machine. Non-government organisations may download them, provide searchable catalogues and make them publicly available. Would an alternative Ombudsman's website be in the interests of Hong Kong? Is this really what the authorities want? The Ombudsman's deleted reports saga tells us that Legco has lost some capacity to hold authorities to account. It tells us that officials expect Legco to speak for the government and not for the people of Hong Kong. Yet, LegCo members should be able to speak out on issues such as this. Authorities should understand that speaking out is not 'attacking' the government but trying to improve local governance. LegCo members' constitutional role includes checking the government. Authorities should relax the gag order on LegCo members so that they can better serve the people. This will build trust in our institutions, which is in everyone's interest. HKFP is an impartial platform & does not necessarily share the views of opinion writers or advertisers. HKFP presents a diversity of views & regularly invites figures across the political spectrum to write for us. Press freedom is guaranteed under the Basic Law, security law, Bill of Rights and Chinese constitution. Opinion pieces aim to point out errors or defects in the government, law or policies, or aim to suggest ideas or alterations via legal means without an intention of hatred, discontent or hostility against the authorities or other communities.
Epoch Times
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Epoch Times
Bipartisan Senators Introduce Bill Seeking Sanctions Against Hong Kong Officials
A bipartisan group of senators has introduced legislation requiring the Trump administration to address Hong Kong's dwindling freedoms since its handover from the United Kingdom to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Sens. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), incoming chairman of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC); Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), co-chair of the CECC; and John Curtis (R-Utah) introduced the Hong Kong Judicial Sanctions Act ( The legislation requires the president to review whether 49 Hong Kong officials, including four who were 'The Chinese Communist Party's aggressive repression of dissent and appalling human rights record extend far beyond China's borders. Even American citizens and others lawfully living in our country have found themselves victims of the CCP regime's intimidation and coercion tactics,' Sullivan 'In Hong Kong, the CCP has completely corrupted the local judiciary and is turning it into a tool of intimidation and injustice, contrary to the promises made to the world, including in the Sino-British Joint Declaration. America must stand firmly against the CCP's flagrant violation of the civil rights of the Chinese people and citizens of nations across the globe.' The push for the legislation comes nearly four years since the CCP imposed its so-called Related Stories 5/18/2025 5/18/2025 As of Nov. 1, 2024, 304 had been arrested for national security offenses in Hong Kong, while 176 were charged and at least 167 convicted or awaiting sentencing, the British government stated in a The U.S. Another judge named in the bill, Esther Toh, is Antony Chau, a Hong Kong government prosecutor Also on the bill's list are Hong Kong chief executive John Lee, who was the city's secretary for security when he was 'As Chinese officials continue to undermine the autonomy and freedoms of its peoples, the United States must continue to hold these officials accountable,' Merkley said in a statement. 'Republicans and Democrats are united in sending a clear message that we will not tolerate this brutal oppression, both within China and outside its borders. A spokesperson for the Hong Kong government issued a statement condemning the U.S. senators, saying the city government 'despises any so-called 'sanctions' and shall never be intimidated.' The D.C.-based Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong (CFHK) Foundation welcomed the senators' effort. 'The U.S. government should implement Magnitsky and other sanctions on these Chinese and Hong Kong officials whom we know are engaging in repression against the people of Hong Kong,' Jonathan Stivers, U.S. director of the CFHK Foundation, said in a Stivers added that the Senate and the House should 'act on this legislation as soon as possible.' A similar bill, named the Hong Kong Sanctions Act ( Separately, the three senators have also introduced a
Yomiuri Shimbun
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Chinafication of Hong Kong: Control Further Tightening over Politics and the Economy
One of the few remaining pro-democratic parties in Hong Kong has been forced to decide to disband. The 'high degree of autonomy' that has been granted to Hong Kong is coming to an end under pressure from China. The Democratic Party — Hong Kong's largest pro-democratic party — decided at a meeting in April to move forward with the procedures for dissolving itself. A party convention will be held at a future time to make an official decision on the issue. Founded in 1994, the party has played a central role in Hong Kong's democratic movement. If dissolved, parties critical of the administration led by the Chinese Communist Party will effectively disappear from Hong Kong politics. Democratic Party chair Lo Kin-hei cited the 'overall political environment' in Hong Kong as he announced the decision to dissolve the party. The intentions of Chinese President Xi Jinping's administration obviously had an impact on the decision. In Hong Kong, an election for the Legislative Council, the territory's parliament, is scheduled to be held in December. Since the last election in 2021, only people recognized as 'patriots' by the authorities have been allowed to run, and pro-democratic forces will not be able to field candidates in the upcoming race either. Moreover, in recent months, the Chinese side has reportedly been pressuring several Democratic Party senior members to dissolve the party before the election, warning them that it would otherwise face 'serious consequences.' Beijing likely aims to stage a 'success' in governing Hong Kong by holding an election after thoroughly eliminating all forces other than pro-China parties. With the blatant clampdown on pro-democratic forces intensifying, the sense of stagnation that covers the cosmopolitan territory of Hong Kong continues to be reinforced. Senior Democratic Party members and others have already been arrested and imprisoned, and many people have fled overseas for fear of being caught. Based on the Sino-British Joint Declaration, China promised to maintain a 'high degree of autonomy' for Hong Kong for 50 years after its return to China in 1997. It cannot be overlooked that Beijing is trampling on an international commitment and promoting the Chinafication of Hong Kong. The Xi administration is also tightening its control over Hong Kong's business community. In response to a plan by a Hong Kong company that operates two major ports on the Panama Canal to sell its business to a consortium of U.S. investors, a senior Chinese government official declared, 'Those who betray national interests will bear the curse of history,' pressing the firm to review the plan. The administration of U.S. President Donald Trump has insisted that China's influence be removed from the canal. The Xi administration, on the other hand, is pressuring the Hong Kong firm, probably because it believes that China would be at a disadvantage in the struggle for hegemony with the United States if port operations at the canal, which is a key trade hub, are put in the hands of the United States. Chinese antitrust authorities have started a review of the sale. If the Hong Kong company's transactions are influenced by Beijing's intervention, the territory's credibility as an international financial center will further decline, thereby damping China's national interests as well. (From The Yomiuri Shimbun, May 7, 2025)
Asia Times
07-04-2025
- Politics
- Asia Times
Taiwan wise to China's many broken promises
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has demonstrated a consistent pattern of making strategic promises, only to later undermine or abandon them once leverage has been achieved. From Hong Kong's dismantled autonomy to broken trade and market-opening commitments made upon joining the World Trade Organization, Beijing's approach has repeatedly prioritized political and strategic gain over long-term credibility. These are not isolated incidents but a systemic feature of how the CCP navigates diplomacy: agreements are instruments of convenience, not binding commitments. This behavior has sown distrust globally, particularly among democratic nations and institutions that have borne the costs of assuming the CCP's promises would endure. In 1951, the CCP promised Tibet autonomy. Within a decade, the Dalai Lama was forced into exile and a brutal campaign of cultural destruction began. Temples were destroyed, language suppressed, and religious expression outlawed. In Xinjiang, once touted as a model for ethnic harmony, over a million Uighurs have been detained in re-education camps. Surveillance technology blankets the region, turning daily life into a dystopian routine. In both cases, initial assurances of freedom were replaced by policies of surveillance, suppression and forced assimilation. Hong Kong stands as the most recent and striking betrayal. The 1997 Sino-British Joint Declaration guaranteed 'One Country, Two Systems' until 2047. Yet, by 2020, China imposed the National Security Law, effectively ending Hong Kong's autonomy. Dissent was criminalized, opposition voices jailed and civil liberties extinguished. Pro-democracy newspapers were shuttered overnight and student activists exiled or imprisoned. The lesson is unambiguous: when Beijing offers autonomy, it is a temporary illusion. And now self-governing Taiwan has no reason to believe it would be treated differently in any negotiated autonomy arrangement. The CCP's duplicity extends far beyond territorial claims. On the world stage, China has used international agreements as stepping stones to power, not frameworks for accountability. When China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, it pledged market openness and rules-based trade. Yet, it systematically exploited loopholes – subsidizing state-owned enterprises, engaging in intellectual property theft and forcing technology transfers on foreign investors. Western industries that embraced engagement now face hollowed-out supply chains and strategic dependency. The notion that economic liberalization would lead to political reform proved disastrously naive. In 2015, President Xi Jinping stood in the White House Rose Garden and promised not to militarize the South China Sea. Within months, Beijing built military installations on artificial islands and equipped them with missile systems, radar towers, and airstrips. Chinese naval patrols now harass foreign vessels in what were once international waters. These militarized zones now threaten freedom of navigation in one of the world's busiest trade routes, raising tensions across Southeast Asia. China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), marketed as a tool for shared prosperity, has instead ensnared several developing countries in debt traps. From Sri Lanka's Hambantota port to African digital infrastructure, projects are designed to increase dependence on Beijing's financial and technological systems. What begins as a partnership ends in subordination. If global powers and institutions have been misled, Taiwan – a target of far greater strategic importance – can expect nothing but duplicity. Taiwan is not merely resisting Chinese coercion, it is proactively crafting a future rooted in autonomy, resilience and innovation. Militarily, Taiwan has adopted asymmetric defense strategies to offset China's numerical advantage. Investments in precision-strike missiles, AI-powered early warning systems and cyber defense capabilities show a shift from reactive defense to strategic deterrence. Every new technology integrated into Taiwan's arsenal serves as a message: the cost of invasion will be catastrophic. Additionally, Taiwan conducts regular joint military exercises with its partners to ensure operational readiness and deterrence credibility. Diplomatically, Taiwan has elevated its global standing without formal recognition. It has deepened ties with democratic allies, hosted parliamentary delegations and established de facto embassies in major capitals. Its recent entry into multilateral forums, despite opposition from Beijing, demonstrates growing international will to support its sovereignty. The 2021 Global Cooperation and Training Framework (GCTF), led jointly by the US and Taiwan, is one example of growing multilateral support that bypasses traditional diplomatic constraints. Economically, Taiwan is solidifying its position as an indispensable global actor. Its dominance in semiconductor manufacturing, led by TSMC, gives it leverage few nations can ignore. Taiwan has also diversified trade away from China, expanding ties with Southeast Asia, Europe and North America. New free trade agreements and investment frameworks have helped anchor Taiwan's economy firmly within the democratic world's supply chain networks. Economic autonomy is not just a policy goal; it is a shield against coercion. Perhaps most impressively, Taiwan is countering CCP disinformation with democratic innovation. It has pioneered digital platforms for citizen engagement, fact-checking and rapid response to online influence campaigns. Its civic tech model, led by digital minister Audrey Tang, is a global benchmark for how transparency and digital literacy can immunize a society against authoritarian manipulation. In doing so, Taiwan is proving that open societies can be more agile and resilient than closed regimes. At the grassroots level, civil society groups, journalists and think tanks play a vital role in resisting authoritarian narratives. Taiwanese media routinely exposes pro-CCP influence operations, while universities produce research on disinformation and cyber defense. This whole-of-society resilience model is what sets Taiwan apart as a truly proactive and future-oriented democracy. The evidence is overwhelming. The CCP does not honor promises, it weaponizes them. It violates treaties, rewrites history and cloaks expansion in diplomacy. Tibet, Xinjiang, Hong Kong, the WTO and the South China Sea confirm this pattern. The international community must abandon the illusion that engagement alone can moderate Beijing's behavior. Words from the CCP are not agreements, they are tactics. Taiwan, by contrast, has shown itself to be a partner rooted in transparency, shared values and global responsibility. Ignoring history is complicity. The world cannot claim ignorance if Taiwan suffers the same fate as others who trusted Beijing. The time to act is now through unified diplomatic support, robust economic partnerships and strengthened regional deterrence. Trust is not a given, it is earned, and the CCP has long since forfeited it. Taiwan has earned the world's trust through its integrity, resilience and innovation. To preserve the balance of peace and democracy in Asia, supporting Taiwan is not just a moral imperative, it is a strategic necessity. Tang Meng Kit is a graduate of the MSc in International Relations program at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore. His research interests encompass cross-Strait relations, Taiwanese politics and policy issues, as well as aerospace technology. He currently works as an aerospace engineer.
South China Morning Post
02-04-2025
- Politics
- South China Morning Post
Once again, pointless sanctions are imposed on Hong Kong by America
It's hard to fathom what Washington hopes to gain realistically by sanctioning six more senior Hong Kong officials. But US vindictiveness knows no bounds. The United States is still smarting over its inability to exploit Hong Kong as an international hub for foreign espionage and interference after the introduction of the national security law. Advertisement Its latest local victims? Secretary for Justice Paul Lam Ting-kwok and retired police commissioner Raymond Siu Chak-yee; Sonny Au Chi-kwong, secretary general of the Committee for Safeguarding National Security in Hong Kong; Dong Jingwei, director of Beijing's Office for Safeguarding National Security in the city; and assistant police commissioners Dick Wong Chung-chun and Margaret Chiu Wing-lan. Their crimes? For enforcing the law – sorry, in the words of the US State Department, for 'undermining Hong Kong's autonomy' and carrying out 'acts of transnational repression'. There is no international treaty guaranteeing 'Hong Kong's autonomy' as a Chinese city, so it's hard to see what the US means by 'contravention of China's commitments'. Perhaps the US is referring to the Sino-British Joint Declaration, a bilateral treaty between those two countries where 'a high degree of autonomy' is promised. But how high or low? Presumably that's something for the two sides who actually signed the treaty to decide. Advertisement Funny, though, that Washington thinks it can interject in any international treaty in which it took no part. But if so, the principle of reciprocity ought to apply for other countries. Perhaps China and the rest of the world should take action against any US breaches of international treaties. There have been breaches of Washington's joint trade treaty with Mexico and Canada, its obligations under the World Trade Organization and World Health Organization, and its unilateral undermining of a multinational agreement to limit Iran's nuclear development. The list is long.
