Latest news with #Tiananmen
HKFP
16 hours ago
- Politics
- HKFP
Same-sex partnership bill: Hong Kong's top court rulings have force of law – lawmakers should know better
At the heart of Hong Kong's success has been its reputation as a bastion of the rule of law in Asia. Yet Hong Kong's rule of law has been severely tested. In 2014-15, for 79 days, protesters occupied the city's Central district in defiance of the law, characterising their action as civil disobedience. A core characteristic of civil disobedience is breaking the law to protest a political or social cause and facing the consequences. Authorities arrested many of the protesters, especially their leaders, prosecuting and convicting them for public order offences. Officials reminded citizens of their duty to obey the law. In 2019, anti-government protesters repeatedly broke the law, breaking into and trashing the Legislative Council (LegCo) chamber, confronting and resisting police, violating public order laws, rioting, and other kinds of violence and vandalism. By 2021, authorities had arrested at least 10,000 and had charged at least 3,000 with various crimes ranging from riot to undermining national security. In its landmark policy statement made public on October 31, 2019, the Chinese Communist Party's Central Committee reminded the people of Hong Kong of their duty to obey the law and urged authorities to strengthen education in the law. Their focus was on Hong Kong's foundational documents, the Chinese Constitution and the Basic Law, Hong Kong's mini-constitution. Central and local authorities have repeatedly urged citizens to respect the law. It is the law, Chief Executive John Lee has said, and therefore must be obeyed. For example, in 2023, speaking about whether authorities would permit Tiananmen commemorations, the chief executive said: 'Everybody should act in accordance with the law and think of what they do, so as to be ready to face the consequences.' Speaking of national security, Secretary for Security Chris Tang and Secretary for Justice Paul Lam have repeatedly urged citizens to obey the law. As pointed out by Lam, Article 42 of the Basic Law reads: ''Hong Kong residents and other persons in Hong Kong shall have the obligation to abide by the laws in force in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region'. The rule of law can only exist and prevail in a society where people are willing to, and in fact, obey the law. It follows that people who breach the law should be brought to justice.' In our system, Court of Final Appeal (CFA) judgments have the force of law. To disobey the law, as the secretary for justice has pointed out, is unacceptable. It follows that citizens may not cherry-pick the law, deciding on their own which legal obligations to follow and which to ignore. It comes as a disappointment that three lawyers, all LegCo members, appear to be advocating disregarding Hong Kong's legal obligations. At issue is the government's proposal to establish a same-sex partnership recognition scheme to fulfil a top court-imposed legal obligation. The three lawyers – Priscilla Leung, Holden Chow, and Junius Ho – have all denounced a government bill that would meet the court's requirements and are actively campaigning against it. They propose no alternative. Other lawmakers appear to have noticed the hypocrisy. For example, LegCo member Edmund Wong asked whether LegCo would be framed as 'not respecting the rule of law' if it rejected the bill. Simply put, yes. What message does this send? May citizens decide on their own which legal obligations to obey? How can it be right to obey legal obligations generally but to disobey others based on some personal considerations? What if each citizen followed this example? The consequences would be chaos. The Basic Law requires that LegCo consider the government's proposal, and so it should. But are they up to the job? Consider the comments of lawmaker Erik Yim, who declared that if the government's proposal became law, 'after completing registration, the same-sex couples might hold bouquets and even wear wedding gowns [at the registration office], taking pictures and sharing them on social media. This may give society a sense of de facto marriage.' Mr Yim should realise that we already celebrate overseas marriages in Hong Kong. I am attending a same-sex couple's wedding banquet in Hong Kong next month. We hold bouquets, we wear wedding attire, we take pictures and share them on social media. The sky has not fallen. Are all LegCo members well enough informed to pass judgement on this issue? I don't understand. Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Erick Tsang has urged LegCo members to be 'rational, balanced and pragmatic.' Let's hope his advice prevails. We're supposed to have an executive-led system. Where is it? To the government's credit, authorities recognise that even if LegCo rejects the bill, the government will have an ongoing legal obligation to fulfil the CFA's ruling. And so it should.
The Diplomat
18-07-2025
- Politics
- The Diplomat
Repressive Laws Are Increasingly Being Used to Silence Activists Across Asia
From Hong Kong to India, governments are passing and weaponizing new laws to pursue and jail whoever speaks up for human rights. Four years ago, on the 32nd anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, plain clothes police arrested human rights lawyer and pro-democracy activist Chow Hang-tung outside her office in Hong Kong. Her alleged crime? Publishing two social media posts advertising a public vigil to remember the notorious crackdown in Tiananmen Square. At the time, Chow was the vice-chair of the now defunct Hong Kong Alliance in Support of the Patriotic Democratic Movement of China, the main organizer of annual Tiananmen vigils. Chow is a target of Hong Kong's draconian National Security Law, which grants authorities in the territory sweeping powers to crush any form of dissent. Today, Tiananmen vigils in Hong Kong are no more, and Chow remains locked up at the Tai Lam Women's Correctional Center, fighting baseless charges of subversion and sedition. Sadly, such repression is not unique to Hong Kong. Across Asia, authoritarian and democratic governments alike are passing and weaponizing new laws – in clear violation of international law and standards – to pursue and jail whoever speaks up for human rights. Today, on Nelson Mandela International Day, we call for the release of Chow Hang-tang, who is part of CIVICUS' Stand As My Witness campaign, as well as other human rights defenders unjustly locked up in Asia around the world. Beijing pushed the repressive National Security Law in 2020 in response to mass pro-democracy protests a year earlier. Since then, the National Security Law, and further legislation passed in 2024, has been used to target hundreds of activists, journalists, protesters and critics. The CIVICUS Monitor, which tracks civic space conditions across the world, now rates Hong Kong's civic space as 'closed,' the worst possible ranking. Hundreds remain behind bars as police systematically use the new laws to arrest and prosecute people on trumped-up charges. Often, the process itself becomes the punishment as activists spend years in detention before they are even tried. These laws have created a chilling effect, forcing independent news outlets and civil society groups to shut down. In April this year, Hong Kong's oldest and largest pro-democracy political party moved to disband as Beijing's sweeping crackdown has left opposition groups without room to operate. Meanwhile, Hong Kong authorities are trying to take their repression international, by offering bounties for activists-in-exile charged under the National Security Law and by arresting the father of a prominent U.S.-based activist, Anna Kwok. Such repression should be viewed with disdain, but rather than being an outlier, Hong Kong's National Security Laws have become something of a model for other Asian governments looking to stifle dissent. Look no further than Beijing's rival, India, often called the world's largest democracy, where Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government resorts to similar laws to consolidate power and silence his critics. Dozens of activists have been jailed under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), a draconian anti-terror law. Under the UAPA's provisions, activists remain in pre-trial detention for long periods and are denied bail, including human rights defender Khurram Parvez, who was arrested in November 2021. His trial has yet to start, four years on. In neighboring Pakistan, the government also weaponizes anti-terror legislation against activists like Mahrang Baloch, who languishes in prison on terror charges for speaking out against ongoing violations of ethnic minority rights by the Pakistan security forces in Balochistan. In Thailand, more than 270 individuals have been arrested or prosecuted under lese-majeste or royal defamation laws since early 2020, many of whom have received long consecutive sentences from the courts. Human rights lawyer Arnon Nampa, for instance, received multiple convictions and 26 years in jail for calling for democratic reforms and reforms of the Thai monarchy. Meanwhile, Cambodia's Han Manet regime has used 'incitement' laws as their weapon of choice to silence activists, journalists, and members of the opposition. With legal repression spreading across Asia, the international community must do more to push back and stand with these brave activists. Foreign governments must not only speak out when activists are convicted, but step in much earlier when these human rights defenders are arrested. Diplomats should visit wrongly arrested activists in detention, monitor their trials, and engage with their families. Foreign governments must also use international platforms like the United Nations Human Rights Council and bilateral meetings to highlight their cases and call for their release. Activists-in-exile also need support and assistance, especially when they face transnational repression. The recent G-7 Leaders' Statement on Transnational Repression was a good start, but strong rhetoric must now turn into serious action. Failure to undertake such actions will see a further regression of democracy and repression of civic freedoms in Asia and elsewhere. However, foreign governments won't apply pressure unless we, as people and activists around the world, push them to take action. Wherever we are, we must use our voices to speak up for human rights defenders behind bars, including through campaigns like Stand As My Witness, which has helped contribute to the release of over 30 human rights defenders since its inception five years ago. After all, jailed human rights defenders aren't giving up on themselves or their causes. This year, on the fifth anniversary of her arrest, Chow Hang-tung went on a hunger strike behind bars to commemorate the Tiananmen Square massacre and to reaffirm her commitment to the struggle despite her imprisonment. It's time for all of us to stand in solidarity with her and other jailed human rights defenders in Asia and across the world.
India Today
15-07-2025
- Politics
- India Today
Why the West keeps getting Xi Jinping wrong
Each time Xi Jinping vanishes from public view—even briefly—the usual chorus springs to life. Think tanks buzz with theories. Twitter (or X) lights up with speculative threads. Television panels convene in haste. Western newspapers quote 'anonymous insiders.' Asian outlets pick up the trail. And once again, headlines proclaim instability at the apex of China's power there's a recurring problem: they're almost always Xi Jinping disappears from view multiple times each year. And each time, it's as if the West has returned to 1989. Out come the Tiananmen metaphors. Op-eds forecast regime collapse. Analysts warn of elite discontent. Then Xi resurfaces—shaking hands, touring factories, delivering speeches. No wheelchair. No oxygen mask. No rumours fade. The speculation dies down. But the cycle? It resets—like clockwork.A Pattern, Not a FlukeWhat we're witnessing isn't just clickbait or lazy journalism. It's something far more deliberate: narrative warfare. A disinformation strategy dressed as analysis. A psychological operation updated for the social media age—designed to sow doubt about China's leadership and to weaken confidence in its political isn't a conspiracy theory. It's a strategy—acknowledged, at times, by former intelligence officials themselves. Psychological operations don't always come with tanks and soldiers. Sometimes, all it takes is a whisper. A provocative headline. A satellite image of dubious origin. A 'leak' from a think the Western press? It plays Study: September 2022Xi skipped a scheduled meeting for less than a week. Western headlines screamed: 'Coup in Beijing?' 'Has the PLA arrested Xi?' Anonymous Indian intelligence sources were quoted. Twitter flooded with satellite images—many from old military drills. Talk of an 'internal rebellion' social media accounts—later traced to IP addresses in Virginia, Taiwan, and London—amplified the frenzy. Then Xi reappeared at a military expo. Calm. Unmoved. The headlines vanished. But the psychological seed had been in 2023 and 2024In August 2023, Xi missed a BRICS planning session. British tabloids declared 'Chaos in Zhongnanhai.' American commentators floated theories about his fallout from the Rocket Force purge. Thai outlets translated it. Japanese pundits debated it. South Korean YouTubers built mini-documentaries around of it turned out to be fiction. Xi met Russian diplomats days later—healthy and present. The story was quietly dropped. No correction. No again in March 2024, just before the National People's Congress, Xi didn't attend a ceremonial event. The Washington Post ran with speculative unrest in the provinces. 'Elite discontent' was once again anonymously most recently, June 2025: ten days of silence. The rumour mill spun furiously—heart problems, power struggles, foreign meddling. But Xi returned—shaking hands with India's External Affairs Minister Dr S. Jaishankar in Beijing, all smiles for the cameras. No explanation CIA, MI6 and the Game of PerceptionWhy does this pattern repeat?Because it intelligence agencies understand that if they cannot physically destabilise China, they can attempt to fracture it psychologically—at least in perception. Global investors, Asian neighbours, and Chinese elites are all watching. Uncertainty is the weapon. Rumours are the delivery don't need to prove Xi is weak. They just need the world to wonder if he why these stories often begin in Langley, Vauxhall Cross, or within Western-funded think tanks. The narrative is seeded, echoed, and amplified. 'Sources say...' 'Satellite imagery suggests...' 'Anonymous officials believe...' Always speculative. Rarely verified. Yet persistently Becomes a WeaponChina's opaque political system lends itself to this tactic. The CCP's culture of secrecy allows room for speculation. Without transparency, Western media fills the void with opacity is not the same as Xi rules an authoritarian regime. Yes, the system crushes dissent and censors critics. But that doesn't mean it's on the verge of implosion every time he takes a break from public this with Western leaders. When a US president disappears? It's 'rest at Camp David.' When a UK Prime Minister goes quiet? 'Family holiday.' When Macron skips a summit? 'Scheduling conflict.'But when Xi disappears? It's a coup. Xi is not merely a man. He is the embodiment of the Chinese state. To suggest he's vulnerable is to imply the whole system Role of Think TanksMany of the organisations driving these narratives are not disinterested academics. They receive funding from defence contractors, government departments, or intelligence-linked sources. Their 'hypotheses' often become tomorrow's not evidence—it's projection. Geopolitics disguised as it works. Markets jitter. Investors hedge. Diplomats scramble. Policymakers rehearse 'China collapse' scenarios. A lie repeated often enough becomes a risk to be media outlets, especially in India, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea, often retransmit these Western narratives. Sometimes out of alignment with geopolitical interests. Other times out of journalistic habit.A Manufactured RealityThis is the outcome: the West gets to script China's decline—no evidence needed. Xi keeps ruling. The CCP keeps functioning. And no journalist, editor, or analyst is ever held to account for being wrong. But they might just get a promotion for 'breaking' the next false is how information warfare Real IllusionYes, Xi Jinping governs with fear. Yes, China's political system is rigid and secretive. But the biggest illusion isn't Xi's the West's addiction to misinterpreting when policy is based on fantasy, it leads to strategic miscalculations. Trade collapses. Alliances erode. War becomes more likely—not because of facts, but because of Jinping is not invincible. But he isn't vanishing in defeat every few months either. And when he reappears after a stretch of silence, it's not a resurrection. It's a reminder: he never left.- Ends
Japan Forward
15-07-2025
- Politics
- Japan Forward
Facing the Invisible Tank: A Dentist Charged for Remembering Tiananmen
In this five-part series, JAPAN Forward profiles individuals in Hong Kong who resist the sweeping effects of the National Security Law. Part 4 tells the story of dentist Lee Ying-chi, who faces charges for commemorating the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre online. Drawing on her experiences — from providing medical aid in China to supporting victims' families in Hong Kong — Lee offers a rare insight into the challenges faced by those whose voices are being silenced. As I stepped out of the building, I caught a glimpse of a shadow slipping by. I turned the corner into a narrow alley and stopped short. A man who had been tailing me brushed past. His face was blank, but his eyes gave him away. He flinched slightly, surprised I had stopped. I watched him walk off. "Well, someone's working hard," I muttered with a wry smile. Still, I was rattled. It was one thing to know the woman I had just met was under surveillance. Now it seemed I had become a target too. I met dentist Lee Ying-chi in a rundown building in Kowloon. She was arrested in May 2024 on suspicion of violating Hong Kong's Safeguarding National Security Ordinance and is currently out on bail. A devout Christian, she was charged for a social media post commemorating the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. Authorities deemed it seditious, accusing her of inciting hatred toward the Chinese and Hong Kong governments. The ordinance, enacted in March 2024, was introduced to supplement the Hong Kong National Security Law. If convicted, Lee faces up to seven years in prison. A woman commemorating the victims of the Tiananmen Square crackdown is taken away by security officials in Hong Kong's Causeway Bay on June 4, 2023. (©Kyodo) "Honestly, on July 1, 1997, when Hong Kong was handed back from Britain to China, I was happy," Lee told me. "I thought we were finally returning to our homeland." Lee studied medicine in Hong Kong and New Zealand. Since 1998, she had worked on medical aid projects in Kunming, China. She saw herself unquestionably as Chinese. But her perspective began to shift during the 2008 Sichuan Earthquake, which struck while she was living in Kunming. "The way the Chinese media and Hong Kong media covered it was completely different," she said. Through Hong Kong newspapers online, she learned — shocked — that collapsed schools and dead children were the result of substandard construction. Grieving mothers were demanding answers. When she returned to Hong Kong in 2009, she joined a protest march calling for truth about Tiananmen. She thought of the mothers and wives of the victims who were still asking why their loved ones had to die. Their pain echoed what she had witnessed in Sichuan. Lee soon began supporting the families of Tiananmen victims. As June 4 approached this year — the anniversary of the Tiananmen massacre — Lee realized she was being followed. While out, she was frequently surrounded by police and had her belongings searched. Officers warned her, "Don't go to Causeway Bay. If you do, it's a year in prison." Causeway Bay is home to Victoria Park, where Tiananmen memorial vigils had been held for over 30 years. But since the National Security Law took effect in 2020, police have shut down the gatherings. On June 4, 2025, Lee rode a tram past Victoria Park. "I didn't go in," she said. "I just passed by." It was a quiet act of defiance. Later that evening, she went to a waterfront area overlooking the lights of Hong Kong Island. The place was crowded with Chinese tourists. Rain began to fall. Lee pulled a recorder from her bag. Just after 7 PM, she played Flowers of Freedom , a protest song once sung during the Victoria Park vigils: But there is a dream, it will not die, remember it No matter how hard the rain falls, freedom still will bloom There is a dream, it will not die, remember this She didn't sing aloud — only in her heart. As she stood there, she thought about Hong Kong's future and how quickly the city was being absorbed into China. Lee once told a friend who had emigrated, "Don't feel sorry for those of us who stayed in Hong Kong. I'm not alone. I'm walking this path with others — my fellow travelers [同路人]." Reporters and police gathered in front of the court where the trial of pro-democracy activists was held for violating the Hong Kong National Security Law. May 30, 2024, Hong Kong. (©Kyodo) She had often worked with the pro-democracy League of Social Democrats. The party officially disbanded on June 29, 2025. Even with it gone, she remains a fellow traveler with its former members. Her commitment, she said, hasn't changed. During our interview, I noticed a tattoo on Lee's arm. When I asked about it, she smiled brightly. Inked in slangy Cantonese were the words: "I freaking love Hong Kong!" The phrase first appeared on a banner on July 1, 2020 — the day after the National Security Law came into effect. As the city slipped into darkness, the words rose up from the streets. Not a polished slogan, but something raw and desperate from the heart. In the years since, many people have buried those feelings deep inside. But Lee etched them onto her skin. As a Hong Konger, she refuses to forget the dream that will never die. ( Read the article in Japanese . ) Author: Kinya Fujimoto, The Sankei Shimbun
HKFP
25-06-2025
- Politics
- HKFP
Hong Kong public libraries receive 140 reports on ‘objectionable content,' including nat. sec violations
Hong Kong public libraries have received around 140 reports from the general public about suspected national security violations and other potentially 'objectionable content' since the reporting mechanism was introduced in 2023. In response to HKFP's enquiries, the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) said on Tuesday that it had received 'around 140 views' from the public since the launch of the 'Collection of Views on Library Collections' mechanism in July 2023. The department said that if any reported library materials were found to have 'objectionable content' – such as exaggerated violence, pornography, vulgarity, content that endangers national security, or violates Hong Kong laws – they would be withdrawn from the shelves. According to the Hong Kong Public Libraries (HKPL) website, the reporting mechanism aims to 'maintain the quality of the collection.' Members of the public can submit their views via an online form, by email, or in person using a paper form. Those submitting a report are asked to provide the title, author, publisher, and reasons why they believe the item is unsuitable for the collection. They are also required to identify specific content – such as page numbers or text excerpts – and the library branch where the material was found. The department did not respond to questions about the details of the library materials in question, nor the number of reports linked to suspected national security violations. Books purged The LCSD stepped up efforts to scrutinise library materials in the name of safeguarding national security after the Audit Commission advised in April 2023 that greater efforts were needed to ensure collections at government-managed libraries were appropriate and did not contravene the Beijing-imposed security law. According to the commission, the LCSD had launched a preliminary review of library materials for 'national security risk considerations' in 2021. The HKPL had completed the review of library books, with those deemed 'manifestly contrary' to national security removed. Chief Executive John Lee said a month after the commission's report that the Hong Kong government has a duty to identify books with 'bad ideologies.' Only titles that reflect values it wishes to foster in society would be recommended by the government, he said. In 2022, the government cited security reasons for refusing to tell a legislator which books had been removed from public libraries because of the Beijing-imposed national security law. The LCSD said at the time that making the list available 'may lead to wide circulation of such library materials with malicious intent.' In 2023, local newspaper Ming Pao found removed during the past three years. It comes after HKFP revealed in 2021 that 29 books about the 1989 Tiananmen crackdown had been axed from libraries. Monday, June 30, marks five years since Beijing inserted national security legislation directly into Hong Kong's mini-constitution in 2020 following months-long pro-democracy protests and unrest. It criminalised subversion, secession, collusion with foreign forces and terrorist acts – broadly defined to include disruption to transport and other infrastructure. The move gave police sweeping new powers and led to hundreds of arrests amid new legal precedents, while dozens of civil society groups disappeared. Separate from the 2020 Beijing-enacted security law, the homegrown Safeguarding National Security Ordinance targets treason, insurrection, sabotage, external interference, sedition, theft of state secrets and espionage. It allows for pre-charge detention of up to 16 days, and suspects' access to lawyers may be restricted, with penalties involving up to life in prison. Article 23 was shelved in 2003 amid mass protests, remaining taboo for years. But, on March 23, 2024, it was enacted having been fast-tracked and unanimously approved at the city's opposition-free legislature. The law has been criticised by rights NGOs, Western states and the UN as vague, broad and 'regressive.' Authorities, however, cited perceived foreign interference and a constitutional duty to 'close loopholes' after the 2019 protests and unrest.
