Latest news with #Sino-BritishJointDeclaration
Epoch Times
2 days ago
- Politics
- Epoch Times
Hong Kong No More: A City Under Siege
Despite its promises of autonomy, the Chinese regime has created a state of authoritarian control, exporting repression and silencing dissent. The siege of Hong Kong started long before the suppressive legislation and spontaneous crackdowns. It began in Beijing and has been brewing since the 1997 handover from the United Kingdom. China has steadily eroded the promises it made under the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration, which guaranteed Hong Kong a 'high degree of autonomy' for 50 years.
HKFP
24-07-2025
- Politics
- HKFP
Declassified files outline UK plan to evacuate Hongkongers in ‘Armageddon scenario' after Tiananmen crackdown
The UK drafted plans to evacuate millions of people in Hong Kong in an 'Armageddon scenario,' following China's Tiananmen crackdown in 1989, according to newly declassified documents. The confidential British Cabinet Office files – made available online on Tuesday – show that then UK prime minister Margaret Thatcher's administration created contingency plans for a mass evacuation of Hong Kong people in the wake of the crackdown. Beijing sent troops to disperse pro-democracy demonstrators at Tiananmen Square on June 4, 1989, killing hundreds – if not thousands, according to some estimates. According to the 415-page documents, the UK assessed its capacity to transfer millions of Hongkongers to Taiwan, the Philippines, or other places in the region by air and by sea, as well as a potential military conflict with China during the evacuation. 'This paper examines the scenarios that might prompt a large-scale exodus from Hong Kong in the period up to 1997 or thereafter,' read a document dated August 17, 1989. 'This includes evacuation by both civil and military means, and arrangements for the reception and resettlement of refugees,' it continued. Hong Kong was handed over from British rule to Chinese rule on July 1, 1997. 'Internally generated panic' The contingency plan – drafted by a secret Cabinet Office committee called 'MISC 140,' which reported to then British diplomat Leonard Appleyard – proposed two pre-1997 scenarios and two post-1997 scenarios that could lead to a mass exodus of people from Hong Kong. In the period preceding 1997, Hong Kong could see 'a steady ebbing away of confidence, culminating in rising panic or economic collapse,' according to the document. 'If the confidence of the people of Hong Kong is not restored, there will inevitably be an increasing outflow of capital and talent from the territory. The rate of emigration would be limited only by the availability of places in the destination countries,' the paper read. The pre-1997 period could also see a 'panic provoked by further developments in China,' which included 'the brutal use of military force against Chinese civilians' and the scenario of a civil war in the country, the paper added. In post-1997 years, Hongkongers could still leave the territory en masse due to 'panic provoked by China' and 'internally generated panic,' the paper envisioned, which could result in the public losing confidence in the Sino-British Joint Declaration, a 1984 agreement under which Beijing promises to maintain a high degree of autonomy for Hong Kong after the transfer of sovereignty. 'In a deteriorating situation, Hong Kong's inhabitants would judge that the Joint Declaration was not working: this might be because of increasing Chinese interference; because of growing corruption in the territory; or because of a perception that Britain and the rest of the international community were no longer willing or able to do much to help,' the paper read. 'Chinese attitude will be crucial' The Cabinet Office committee set out a three-phase contingency plan – from 'green' to 'amber' to 'red.' The British government would monitor movement from Hong Kong to the UK and amass the transportation capacity required for a mass evacuation when a large-scale exodus was imminent or had begun. Among the evacuation plans proposed by the committee was one that would charter all 143 non-Chinese-owned cruise ships in the world, then ferry people in Hong Kong to Taiwan, the Philippines, and Australia. Military assistance by the British air force and navy would be a 'significant feature' of an evacuation plan 'up to July 1997 but not beyond,' when Hong Kong was due to return to Chinese rule, according to the paper. 'The Chinese attitude will be crucial in determining whether there is a crisis leading to a mass exodus and, if so, how that crisis can be managed,' a document from October 1989 read. The UK also 'could not handle a mass evacuation alone,' the documents show, and material support from the US – which has a large military presence in Asian countries like Japan and the Philippines – would be imperative. 'Other countries would have to help, and the United States would be particularly important,' according to the documents. The files also disclose the UK government's estimate of the financial cost such a mass evacuation plan would have on the country. 'A large influx into the United Kingdom would create a huge resettlement problem which would be hugely expensive to deal with. This underlines the importance of doing everything possible to prevent a mass exodus,' the documents read. Exodus Between 1985 and 1997, about 57,600 people moved from Hong Kong, according to a 2021 BBC report citing official figures provided by the city's authorities. The number paled in comparison to a more recent wave of large-scale emigration during the Covid pandemic, with official data showing a net outflow of about 123,000 residents in 2020 and 2021. Part of the outflow is believed to have been propelled by the city's political changes following the pro-democracy protests and unrest in 2019 and Beijing's imposition of a national security law in 2020 to quell dissent. As of March this year, 163,400 people from Hong Kong holding British National (Overseas) passports have arrived in the UK since London began accepting applications in 2021, according to the UK's Home Office. Hong Kong's population shrank from about 7.48 million in 2020 to 7.34 million in mid-2022, before rebounding to about 7.53 million at the end of last year. The government attributed the population rise to various policies aiming to attract talent and import overseas labour.
HKFP
31-05-2025
- 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)
