Freedom Fighter 游蕙禎

Hong Kong's rebellious lawmaker Yau Wai-ching
By Helier Cheung

Yau Wai-ching is the youngest woman to be elected to Hong Kong's parliament -- and she has been called many things, including: "radical", "goddess", "spy", "pretty" and "cancer cell".
In the space of two months, the 25-year-old has become one of the most controversial politicians in Hong Kong -- and is now pitted in a court battle against the Hong Kong and Chinese governments -- even though she has admitted it could bankrupt her.
Ms Yau and fellow party member Sixtus Leung won elections in September, gaining more than 55,000 votes between them.
Ms Yau, a daughter of two civil servants, had little previous political experience, and made headlines for edging out a veteran politician to win a seat.
The Chinese Studies graduate had been involved in the 2014 pro-democracy protests, when tens of thousands of people, including large numbers of students, took to the streets demanding fully democratic elections in Hong Kong.
She describes the protests as an important part of her political awakening.
After the movement failed to win any concessions from Beijing, Ms Yau and Mr Leung became involved in a new political party -- Youngspiration -- that campaigns against mainland China's influence on Hong Kong, and advocates a "Hong Kong first" approach.
The party struck a nerve with many young Hong Kongers unhappy with China and disillusioned with traditional pro-democracy parties, who they argue have failed to achieve any reform.
But, after their election victory, things quickly spiralled out of control.
Ms Yau and Mr Leung sparked a furore when they were being sworn in last month.
Instead of pledging allegiance to the "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China", the duo swore allegiance to the "Hong Kong nation", used a term considered derogatory towards China, and displayed a banner that read "Hong Kong is not China".
Their oaths were invalidated, and thousands of people protested against their actions, demanding they be removed from parliament.
A top Chinese official even likened the duo to "two cancer cells -- if you don't care about it, it will continue to hurt your body".
The Hong Kong government launched a court case to disqualify them.
And the Chinese government also decided to intervene -- issuing a controversial interpretation of Hong Kong's law on oath taking, to say that any oath that is not "sincere" should be automatically disqualified.
After losing the court case, Ms Yau and Mr Leung were disqualified as legislators -- and are now also bombarded with angry comments on social media, where people accuse them of being useless, politically naïve, or insulting their country.
But for all the controversy surrounding her, Ms Yau comes across as mild-mannered and determined in person -- and less slick or media trained than many other politicians.
"We know that appealing the court decision will cost a lot," she says.
"We may face bankruptcy, but we have no choice."
She is concerned that if the case is not challenged, it may set a legal precedent for other pro-independence legislators to be disqualified, which would allow the government to "negate the results of a democratic vote".
She says she believes in independence for Hong Kong because the "One Country, Two Systems" model under which it is governed, after it was handed back to China from the British in 1997, is "a failed experiment".
Despite the model, which promises Hong Kong a high degree of autonomy, "in these few years we have seen the PRC [People's Republic of China] government having direct interventions into the internal affairs of Hong Kong".
"We have to find another way to solve this problem," she says.
"One solution may be independence -- or maybe we can find another kind of solution, but right now I can't think of any other solutions."
It is true that there has been growing anger in Hong Kong at perceived Chinese involvement in its affairs.
In particular, the disappearance of five Hong Kong booksellers who published books critical of mainland China in late 2015 sparked concerns over Hong Kong's future.
Hong Kong relies on China for much of its food and water supplies -- as well as much of its trade -- and the Chinese government has shown that it has zero tolerance for moves towards independence from any of its territories.
Veteran democracy activist Martin Lee said he felt suspicious of Ms Yau and Mr Leung's actions, saying that they are "giving [Beijing] the excuse" to destroy Hong Kong's judicial independence.
Some have even accused Ms Yau and Mr Leung of secretly working with Beijing to undermine Hong Kong's pro-democracy movement.
Ms Yau flatly denies this, and says her party has faced such accusations ever since it was founded.
"There are no external forces telling us what to do, to make long term plans, or betray Hong Kong."
Looking amused, she adds: "If we really were undercover agents, surely we'd still be in the legislative council -- we wouldn't have let ourselves get kicked out, would we?"
Ms Yau is known for being outspoken.
She supported gay marriage in her election campaign -- despite receiving criticism for it -- and also raised eyebrows when she said that Hong Kong's housing shortage meant that young people had "no room to bang".
But a lot of the comments about Ms Yau have focused on her gender and appearance, rather than her policies.
One newspaper wrote articles about what she wore to rallies, highlighting what they called her "protest look", while others nicknamed her "goddess" in reference to her appearance.
And the sexism appears to have stepped up a notch since the oath-taking controversy.
At one pro-Beijing protest, demonstrators stuck a photo of Ms Yau on a sex doll -- and internet commentators have shared photos of Ms Yau's dress being hiked up during a scuffle in parliament.
Ms Yau says she believes the sexist attacks are "not because of my gender -- it's because my ideology is different from theirs".
However, experts have argued that the remarks are indicative of gender stereotyping in Hong Kong media -- and worry that they could put off other women from entering politics.
As for Ms Yau, she says she will continue to work to fulfil her campaign pledges -- even if she loses her appeal and her seat in parliament.
"The fact is that many Hong Kongers take [independence] as an aim for the future of Hong Kong," and the government can't ignore those voices, she says.
"I hope in the future, Hong Kong people have the power to choose their destiny and the future they want -- whatever it is they decide to choose."

The Guardian view on independence for Hong Kong: made in Beijing

Instead of dealing with a political problem, China has sought confrontation

By Editorial

Hong Kong lawyers taking part in a silent protest earlier this month. They were objecting to Beijing’s intervention in a local political dispute that effectively barred two popularly elected separatist lawmakers from taking office.

No one can accuse Chris Patten, Hong Kong’s last colonial governor, of not being prepared to scrap with China to defend liberal values in the territory. 

The Conservative peer and chancellor of the University of Oxford took the view – rightly – two decades ago that Hong Kong’s prosperity was underpinned by a free and plural society. 

He pushed for more representative institutions, albeit far too late in Britain’s century-and-a-half tenure in charge. 

In doing so he earned the enmity of Beijing. 

Its media organs churned out ever more elaborate descriptions of the governor. 

A “serpent” and a “wrongdoer who would be condemned for a thousand generations” are among the kinder epithets hurled by mainland propagandists. 

His elected council was dissolved upon Hong Kong’s handover to the people’s republic in 1997.
So it is strange now, perhaps, to find Beijing and Lord Patten in agreement over the antics of two pro-independence Hong Kong legislators. 

Yau Wai-ching, 25, and Sixtus “Baggio” Leung, 30, had pledged allegiance to the “Hong Kong nation” and unfurled a banner declaring “Hong Kong is not China” during a swearing-in ceremony earlier this year. 

In conflating the push for greater democracy with the argument for independence, activists are, in Lord Patten’s words, “dishonest, dishonourable and reckless”. 

Words that might not go amiss in the editorials of Beijing’s mouthpiece Global Times which mocked “the Hong Kong independence farce”.
Full-blown secession from the mainland is a pipe dream. 

China’s communist leaders have zero tolerance for independence movements in restive Tibet and Xinjiang, home to minorities that resent Beijing’s rule. 

These regions suffer from periodic “strike hard” campaigns to crush dissent. 

Beijing is unlikely to let a Chinese-majority showcase city slip away. 

Yet calls for an independent Hong Kong are made from anger rather than reason. 

Independence sentiments were roused in the aftermath of 2014’s pro-democracy Umbrella Revolution. 

The mess is of Beijing’s own making. 

Two years ago, Hong Kong was ranked number one for crony capitalism by the Economist. 

Falling salaries co-existed with soaring property prices and made the city state one of the most unequal places in the developed world. 

This economic anxiety was coupled with an assertion of a Hong Kong identity. 

When Beijing rejected demands for open elections for Hong Kong’s next chief executive it energised protesters. 

The Occupy-style movement ended up with police firing tear gas on peaceful protesters.
Since then Beijing’s interference in local affairs has been heavy-handed. 

Liberal academics have been cowed and there are calls for “patriotic education” in Hong Kong. Booksellers have been spirited away. 

Pro-democracy activists harrassed. 

What was being hollowed out was Beijing’s “one country, two systems” policy, meant to guarantee Hong Kong’s way of life. 

By the summer crowds gathered for Hong Kong’s first ever pro-independence rally. 

A poll found one in six of the city’s residents favoured secession. 

Instead of dealing with a political problem, China has sought confrontation and control – threatening new national security laws that outlaw treason. 

When Beijing took over, Hong Kong was one-fifth of China’s economy. 

Now it is one-fiftieth. 

The problem is that, without dialogue and compromise, the situation is likely to get worse before it gets better.

Hong Kong's banned lawmakers aren't backing down

By James Griffiths

Hong Kong -- Yau Wai-ching and Sixtus "Baggio" Leung would be forgiven for feeling a little shell shocked.
They've gone from being stars of Hong Kong's nascent independence movement, to public enemy number one, criticized in newspapers and on television, and harassed online.
In September, the pair were elected to Hong Kong's parliament, LegCo, where they joined a raft of other young lawmakers favoring greater autonomy for the city or even independence from China.
"When we were elected, our battle between the people and government was just starting," Yau, a 25-year-old former community worker, told CNN.
That battle has escalated far quicker than anyone could imagine. 

On November 2, Yau and Leung were dragged from LegCo by security guards as they found themselves at the center of a legal battle that threatens to undermine the city's already shaky political system.

Oathgate

The saga began as lawmakers were taking their oaths of office last month. 

While pro-democracy politicians have used the ceremony as a venue for protest in the past, Yau and Leung took it a step further.
They swore and insulted China and displayed flags with the words "Hong Kong is not China," leading to their oaths being rejected, along with several other lawmakers who flubbed their vows.
The pair were due to retake their oaths properly the following week when everything got a lot more complicated. 

Hong Kong government officials sued to prevent them being sworn-in again, arguing they had forgone their opportunity.
Before the court could rule, Beijing too waded in, using a rarely-used power to re-interpret Hong Kong's constitution.

Sixtus "Baggio" Leung and Yau Wai-ching speak to CNN.

Yau and Leung could not retake their oaths, and would not become lawmakers, Beijing said. 

This was later backed up by a Hong Kong court, though the pair are appealing.
"We were elected by over 50,000 voters," Leung said, adding that he was fighting to "protect our system and the separation of powers and the rule of law."
Yau defended the pair's protest as a tradition, pointing to occasions in the past where other lawmakers used the oath-taking session "for a performance or chance to show their ideologies."
Displaying the flags was just a statement of fact, Leung added, "Hong Kong is not China."
They would not comment on the content of their oaths, due to the ongoing appeal.

What's at stake?

Beijing's ruling came as a shock to much of Hong Kong.
Last week, wearing black and led by a marshal holding a black umbrella, more than 2,000 lawyers marched on the city's top court, in a silent demonstration against what they saw was a blow to the city's judicial autonomy.
"This is treachery on behalf of the (Chinese government) to the Hong Kong people. How can they ever trust them again?" said Alan Leong, a former barrister and co-founder of the pro-democracy Civic Party, adding that Beijing's ruling was "completely unnecessary."
The fear is that Beijing's interpretation, which requires officials to pledge allegiance to Hong Kong as an inalienable part of China, will undermine judicial independence and the "one country, two systems" principle under which the city is governed.
"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," pro-democrat lawmaker Claudia Mo wrote in an op-ed after the ruling.
Some fear that Beijing is also indicating a willingness to change the constitution at will. 

Before the most recent interpretation, the power had only been used four times in the past 19 years.

Yau Wai-ching holds a court ruling as she leaves the High Court in Hong Kong on November 15, 2016.

Why did Beijing act?

The oath-taking saga comes amid increasing support in Hong Kong for independence from China, which has caused concern and outrage in Beijing.
In the run-up to the LegCo elections in September, several pro-independence candidates were banned from taking part, including Edward Leung (no relation to Baggio), then the city's most famous separatist politician.
Yau and Leung's actions "hit the bottom line of the 'one country, two systems' principle and posed a grave threat to national sovereignty and security," China's top lawmaking body said in a statement this month.
Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said last week that "pro-independence forces in Hong Kong want to split the nation."
Leung accused his and Yau's critics of "blaming the victim," and argued that it is Beijing which has fostered support for independence through its heavy-handed actions.
"They're the ones who caused a generation of Hong Kongers to think that 'one country, two systems,' isn't working," he said.
Yau added that people should recognize the arrangement is "a failed experiment, no country would choose to rule a city in this way."
If Hong Kong does not become independent, she said, then it is just the same as any other Chinese city.

Despite widespread outrage over Beijing's intervention, including mass protests, Yau and Leung have also come in for a whirlwind of criticism, even from anti-Beijing quarters.
Chinese state media said that it was "the will and demand of the entire population of China" that the pair be ejected, and pro-Beijing groups staged a protest against them holding signs such as "Yau and Leung get out of China."

While other pro-democrat lawmakers have largely stood in solidarity with the pair, outside LegCo reaction has been decidedly mixed, with some supporters even expressing frustration over Yau and Leung's actions.

While Yau and Leung said they are determined to keep fighting to the end (the case has not yet reached Hong Kong's Court of Final Appeal), it is clear events are taking their toll.

"Most Hong Kongers are sympathetic to us," Yau said. 

At times however, criticism has turned personal.
The youngest woman ever elected to LegCo, Yau has frequently been the target of offensive and sexist comments, and at a protest last month pro-Beijing groups displayed a naked sex doll with her face on it.
While Yau denied that her gender has been a factor, she said the criticism has made her family worry for her safety.
Paraphrasing a song lyric by Canto-rock singer Candy Lo, Leung said he could handle being "abandoned by the world" so long as he had something to love.
"Hong Kong is like a sinking ship," he said, but one he hoped to save.

US Criticism Mild as China Bars Hong Kong Independence Activists

By Michael Lipin

Newly elected Hong Kong lawmakers Yau Wai-ching (left) and Sixtus Leung react during a press conference outside the high court in Hong Kong, Nov. 15, 2016. Two newly elected Hong Kong separatist lawmakers were disqualified from taking office in a court decision.

WASHINGTON — China’s unprecedented barring of two election-winning Hong Kong independence activists from becoming lawmakers has drawn a mild expression of disappointment from Washington.
Hong Kong’s High Court disqualified the two legislators-elect, Sixtus Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching, Tuesday, saying they failed to take a valid oath at a ceremony last month and would not get a second chance. 

Leung and Yau had altered the wording of the Hong Kong Legislative Council’s oath of office by using a derogatory term for China and displaying a “Hong Kong is not China” banner.
Hong Kong returned to Chinese sovereignty from British colonial rule in 1997 under a constitution guaranteeing it a high degree of autonomy as part of one country with two systems of government.
Days before the Hong Kong court acted against the two independence activists, China’s top legislative body issued a ruling November 7 calling for the disqualification of Hong Kong legislators-elect who do not sincerely swear an oath of allegiance to Beijing.
The National People’s Congress Standing Committee ruling, an interpretation of the Hong Kong constitution, or Basic Law, prompted U.S. State Department spokesman Mark Toner to say the Obama administration is “disappointed by recent developments related to” the Legislative Council (Legco). 

Toner also urged Chinese and Hong Kong authorities and Hong Kong lawmakers to “refrain from actions that … undermine confidence in the one country, two systems principle.”
Newly elected Hong Kong lawmakers Yau Wai-ching (centre left) and Sixtus Leung talk to journalists during a press conference outside the high court in Hong Kong, Nov. 15, 2016. A Hong Kong High Court judge ruled that Sixtus Leung and Yau of the Youngspiration party violated a section of the semiautonomous Chinese city's constitution, the Basic Law, as well as laws covering oaths taken by officials.

Another State Department spokesperson, Elizabeth Trudeau, reacted to the Hong Kong court’s November 15 move by saying Washington was aware of the development and repeating parts of Toner’s earlier statement, but without expressing disappointment or urging anyone to refrain from particular actions.

Familiar ambiguity
The Obama administration’s latest comments about Hong Kong appear to follow a pattern. 

In recent years, it has expressed concern about Hong Kong’s political disputes and social unrest related to democratic reforms, while also declining to take sides between the Chinese territory’s opposing pro-democracy and pro-Beijing/pro-establishment factions.
Robert Daly, director of the Washington-based Kissinger Institute on China and the United States, told VOA’s China 360 podcast that the Obama administration wants to avoid being once again portrayed by China as manipulating Hong Kong politics. 

Pro-Beijing media outlets accused Washington of inciting Hong Kong’s 2014 pro-democracy protests and labeled protest leaders as American agents.
“I see the vagueness of the Obama administration’s latest remarks as recognizing the complexity of the situation, and recognizing that Chinese leaders may be acting unwisely but not technically outside of their jurisdiction,” Daly said. 

“The United States does not want to give Beijing a club with which to beat people in Hong Kong, namely, saying that they are the tools of America.”
Leung and Yau have expressed no remorse for their actions at the October 12 swearing-in ceremony. They have vowed to appeal their disqualification from Legco to Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal.
If Yau and Leung lose their appeal, Hong Kong will have to hold by-elections to fill their vacant Legco seats. 

Any such elections likely would be held early next year, by which time Hong Kong’s independence movement will be an issue for the next U.S. administration of Donald Trump to deal with.

Free Speech Ruling Threatens To Revive Mass Anti-China Protests In Hong Kong

By Ralph Jennings ,

The Hong Kong high court is due to rule Tuesday on whether two young people elected as legislators in the Chinese territory can hold office despite taking oaths where they used their own language. Their words and the anti-China sentiment behind them offended Beijing.

The duo, Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching, took the supposed oaths on Oct. 12.
They belong to a political party called Youngspiration, which is ideologically close to the protesters who occupied Hong Kong streets for nearly 80 days in 2014 to resist Beijing’s vetting of election candidates.
Their fate in court could revive those “Umbrella Movement” demonstrations as sympathetic youth worry again about China’s influence.

Mass protests are a headache for China as it seeks to contain autonomy seekers in Hong Kong, as well as its far west, while convincing proudly self-ruled Taiwan it should someday unify with Beijing.
Hong Kong’s legal system is technically autonomous. 

However, the territory of 7 million people has fallen under Communist Chinese rule since 1997. China is hardly tolerant of dissent, to wit its role in the disappearance earlier this year of Hong Kong booksellers who sold material critical of Chinese leaders.
Thousands protested already in Hong Kong Nov. 6 and Nov. 13 over Beijing’s influence in the oath flap. 

A legislative committee in Beijing had reviewed Hong Kong’s law and moved toward an interpretation that would stop legislators in the territory from actions or words that breach allegiance to the People’s Republic. 

Hong Kong’s chief executive and justice secretary had asked the court to declare as vacant the seats won by Leung, 30, and Yau, 25.
Protests could easily reignite Tuesday or over the weekend again if the court tells the duo they can neither be legislators nor retake the oath.
“Beijing’s intervention is likely to add fuel to fire in Hong Kong, where many already feel deeply resentful towards the central government, contributing to similar expression of anger in the future,” says Maya Wang, China researcher with the advocacy group Human Rights Watch.
Yet any street demonstrations may be short lived this time. 

About 44,000 people in Hong Kong had signed an online petition asking that Yau apologize for using the F-word and calling China the derogatory term “Chee-na” in her oath, Hong Kong Free Press reported in mid-October.
Internet commentary reveals a mix of support and bewilderment. 

Some people wonder why the pair didn’t see the clash coming or what they expected if they did. 

“I’m surprised that the two refused to take the oath,” a portfolio manager in Hong Kong told this blog. 

“I mean, they should have thought of that before running, yes? If you’re not going to take the oath than why run?”

The People of Hong Kong vs. The People’s Republic of China

A Hong Kong court could soon decide on the future legal relationship between the city and the mainland.
BY SUZANNE SATALINE

Hong Kong’s colonial past is still alive in the city’s courtrooms. 

There, judges are called “my lord” or “my lady,” and barristers stride in black robes and heavy wigs that ripple with thick skeins of horsehair. 

The scenes connote sobriety, stability, and, for many Hong Kongers, equality before the law — even though they unfold within the People’s Republic of China, where legal proceedings are cloaked in mystery.
Hong Kong has the only legal system in the world with an independent judiciary that operates within a socialist dictatorship, according to Cora Chan, an associate law professor at the University of Hong Kong. 

It’s been a struggle to balance the odd marriage between Leninist doctrine and Western common law, especially at those moments when the Communist government tips the scales and privileges party preservation over transparency and fairness.
This week saw one such moment. 

On Nov. 7, China’s de facto legislature, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPCSC), intervened in an ongoing Hong Kong court case and effectively banished two newly elected lawmakers who champion the region’s independence. 

Sixtus “Baggio” Leung and Yao Wai-ching derided the People’s Republic during their swearing-in ceremony last month, and the city’s executive went to court to bar them from retaking their oaths. Before the judge could rule, the Standing Committee issued a rare legal directive on Nov. 7.
The directive effectively imposes a loyalty test on Hong Kong officeholders, and clouds the future not just of Leung and Yao but of two other lawmakers, whose initial vows were deemed invalid. 

The document could also prevent pro-independence residents from seeking office and muzzle secessionist talk by opposition lawmakers. 

“[The central government] is determined to firmly confront the pro-independence forces without any ambiguity,” said Li Fei, the chairman of the Beijing-based committee that oversees Hong Kong’s constitution, known as the Basic Law, as he explained the decision. 

Hong Kong Chief Executive C.Y. Leung said his government will enact the Beijing doctrine in full.
To advocates of Hong Kong’s legal — if not national — independence, this was a death knell. 

On Nov. 8, Hong Kong’s lawyers organized a silent march to protest the NPCSC’s decision. 

Hundreds of lawyers and other residents, dressed in black, quietly walked the city’s streets. 

Three days earlier, a much larger protest over Beijing’s intrusion drew young Hong Kongers; a few hundred defied police and were pepper-sprayed.
Beijing’s intervention puts the Hong Kong government in a bind. 

Using a one-sentence line in Hong Kong’s constitution concerning oaths, Beijing expanded the duties of Hong Kong officials and suppressed free speech — a rewriting of city law that violates the established process to amend Hong Kong’s constitution.
If Hong Kong follows Beijing’s directive, as Chief Executive C.Y. Leung has promised, the impact could be enormous. 

The city would lose at least two lawmakers chosen by popular vote, possibly more, and some legislators critical of the government would be silenced. 

The directive might also be applied retroactively, legal scholars say, allowing the government to remove more lawmakers whose oaths — or politics — might not match the Beijing line.
Most troubling is that the decision threatens the city’s independence and punctures the 50-year firewall, created in 1997, that protects Hong Kong’s rights and powers from the authoritarian system to the north in a framework called “one country, two systems.”
“This is the most brutal form of intervention with a judicial interpretation,” says Johannes Chan, a law professor at the University of Hong Kong and former faculty dean. 

“It’s interfering with the judicial process. It’s far worse than any time before … The NPC has no power to make law for Hong Kong, as such. The blow, apart from the fatal blow to the judicial system, is how could anyone have confidence in one country, two systems?”
Nineteen years after Britain ceded Hong Kong to Chinese control, many residents are furious with what they consider Beijing’s encroachments and demands for allegiance. 

Thousands of people attended a rally in August to support five candidates who were blocked from running for Legislative Council, or Legco, after they voiced support for independence or a referendum on the city’s future. 

Many protested last year after five employees of a publishing house kidnapped and detained on the mainland. 

A Chinese legal decision in 2014 promised free elections in Hong Kong, but only for candidates vetted by Beijing. 

The resulting fury fanned a vast street occupation that lasted nearly three months.
The Basic Law allows China to step in and issue interpretations of law, but legal scholars who have studied the process to draft the constitution with the PRC say that the intent was not to invite blatant interference in Hong Kong local governance. 

Yet, the NPCSC has tried to break the spirit of the agreement repeatedly since reunification, at least four times prior to this week. 

Because Hong Kong’s constitution permits China’s legislature to offer its views, Hong Kong can’t ignore Beijing’s legal decrees, Johannes Chan says, but must find ways to work with or around them.
Hong Kong lawyers are now debating how to handle China’s latest intervention. 

Hong Kong’s government argued in court on Nov. 10 that China’s directive justified an order to bar Baggio Leung and Yao from office, but lawyers for the dissenting lawmakers, both from the new party Youngspiration, asked that the edict be disregarded.
Other pro-Beijing groups are making use of the Beijing directive. 

That same day, a member of a taxi driver’s group — one which successfully petitioned the court in 2014 to shut down the street occupation — asked the court to reject eight pro-democracy lawmakers because their oaths had been improper by Beijing’s definition.
“The community is still hopelessly split on this,” Johannes Chan said about city residents. 

“There are no shortage of people who embrace the NPC interpretation.” 

He noted the advertisements in some newspapers placed by pro-China associations and commerce groups lauding Beijing’s move. 

“Society is more polarized and this creates more problems than it resolves.”
What happens next is now in the hands of the Hong Kong judge presiding over the case. 

He could dodge the constitutional conundrum, decide that oath-taking is a legislative issue, and kick the problem back to that chamber. 

That would avoid some problems and create others. 

The president of Legco, who is considered a Beijing loyalist, would be expected to follow the NPC dictates. 

“They now feel that whenever they interpret the Basic Law they can add whatever they like to it,” says Kevin Yam, one of three conveners of the Progressive Lawyers Group. 

The Legco president will comply. 

“Of course he’s going to follow the interpretation, regardless of any legal basis for it … It’s one rotten mess, really.”
Or, the judge could accept China’s legal directive and bar the two lawmakers from office. 

That might require that the courts review the words and actions of every sitting lawmaker, to ensure their oaths were declaimed “sincerely and solemnly,” as proscribed by Beijing. 

Ejecting the lawmakers in this way would also neuter the veto power of the legislature’s pro-democracy camp, several lawyers said. 

What’s more, a decision to follow Beijing’s order would likely invite more interference from Beijing. “The possibilities are endless,” says Yam. 

“They could interpret Basic Law and vastly expand the scope of executive power under the Basic Law.” 

Alternatively, the judge could accept a less expansive version of Beijing’s argument, and decide that it applies only to future lawmakers and candidates.
A final option is what Cora Chan calls the “nuclear” choice. 

In theory, the court could reject Beijing’s paper as a nonbonding opinion that exceeds the framework of Hong Kong’s constitution.
That would risk the wrath of the Chinese Communist Party.
“There’s always this possibility that whatever the courts do, it might antagonize China and China might then issue another interpretation to overrule the court’s understanding,” she says. 

“One might argue, if you antagonize Beijing, they might take away the entire common law legal system in Hong Kong. That’s a possibility.”
There is precedent, though, for Hong Kong’s resistance. 

In 1999, the city’s Court of Final Appeal found that Hong Kong judges have the right to reject legislative acts from the NPC or its committee if they are inconsistent with Basic Law. 

In a 2001 case, Hong Kong judges found that a statement in Beijing interpretation was not binding and had no bearing on common law practice. 

“The courts,” the justices wrote, “will not on the basis of any extrinsic materials depart from the clear meaning and give the language a meaning which the language cannot bear.”
Cora Chan says Hong Kong could test Beijing’s limits and take a similar approach with the new interpretation; there’s always a chance, she says, that Beijing won’t intervene further.
In the long run, she says, Hong Kong must consider effective controls — political or legal — on Beijing’s power over Hong Kong. 

In Britain, Parliament is checked through elections. 

China’s lawmakers aren’t subject to public choice. 

“Going forward it’s not going to work,” she says. 

“Without effective political controls, we should probably start exploring other sources of control … We just can’t have a high position-maker over Hong Kong that is not subject to any limits.”
Whether the interpretation shapes the current court’s decision or not, the battle over national — or local — loyalties is intense. 

C.Y. Leung, the city’s chief executive, said he will adhere to Beijing’s repeated request to reintroduce a constitutional security act that would bar treason, secession, sedition and subversion. 

When the proposed amendment, known as Article 23, was last broached, the broad range of offenses enraged the public. 

Waves of massive demonstrations in 2003 pushed the government to shelve the bill.
“Beijing has no respect for Hong Kong’s legal system at all. So it’s determined to kneecap the judiciary, to kneecap the legislature, and it already has the executive [on its side],” says Alvin Cheung, a Hong Kong lawyer and legal scholar at New York University. 

Then the government could delay having elections to replace the disbarred lawmakers “to get whatever legislation they want passed. Then they can run the by-elections then and no one who’s remotely sympathetic to democracy would be allowed to run, because they’re all national security threats. Unfortunately, that’s all dangerously plausible.”

China Targets More Liberal Hong Kong Lawmakers in Widening Crackdown

Fears grow for a possible purge of pro-democracy legislators
By Kevin Lui / Hong Kong

Newly elected lawmaker Sixtus "Baggio" Leung, center, is restrained by security after attempting to read out his oath of office at the Legislative Council in Hong Kong on Nov. 2, 2016.

Following an unprecedented move by Beijing to effectively bar two newly elected, pro-independence Hong Kong lawmakers from taking their seats, there are now worrying signs that more than a dozen of their more moderate colleagues could be in the central government’s crosshairs.
Speaking at a seminar Wednesday in the southern Chinese city of Shenzhen, part of the sprawling conurbation that borders Hong Kong, mainland legal official Wang Zhenmin claimed that up to 15 currently serving legislators who favor greater political freedoms for the semiautonomous territory had “brought shame on people across China” by turning their October inaugurations into acts of protest — or, as he put it, “making a show at a solemn oath-taking ceremony” and “turning oath-taking into a joke.”
Wang is the legal chief of China’s Liaison Office — Beijing’s official establishment in Hong Kong.
His remarks came two days after the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPCSC), China’s largely ceremonial legislature, decided that pro-independence lawmakers Yau Wai-ching, 25, and Sixtus “Baggio” Leung, 30, should be barred from the legislature because, during their swearing-in ceremonies, they pledged allegiance to the “Hong Kong Nation” instead of Hong Kong as a Special Administrative Region of China, and also referred to China in a manner considered derogatory.
Barring the additional 15 lawmakers would amount to a major purge of liberal voices in the chamber and leave the legislature in complete control of the government and pro-Beijing politicians.
Nathan Law, a student leader who emerged from the Umbrella Revolution protests of 2014 to become, at 23, Hong Kong’s youngest ever legislator, is one of the lawmakers in Beijing’s sights. During his swearing-in, he stuck to the script of the oath, but raised his intonation at the end of “The People’s Republic of China” whenever it was mentioned in the script, as though asking a question. He had also quoted Indian independence icon Mohandas Gandhi before he took the oath.
Law insists that he has taken his oath lawfully. 

“They are trying to launch an all-in war against all the democrats,” he tells TIME. 

“That is political oppression from the Beijing government.”
Also on Wednesday, Ted Hui, a legislator from the Democratic Party, was ejected from the chamber when he questioned the president’s decision not to allow an adjournment debate on the NPCSC’s intervention. 

Efforts by fellow legislators to stop Hui’s eviction led to scuffles, reports Radio Television Hong Kong, causing the meeting to be suspended and relocated.
The NPCSC’s ruling on Yau and Leung followed an appeal to it by the city’s deeply unpopular, pro-Beijing administration. 

The two rebel lawmakers were elected on a wave of popular sentiment that has seen many in Hong Kong consider, for the first time, far greater autonomy for the territory if not self-determination or outright independence.
The committee’s decision comes as the culmination of a weeks-long firestorm and political crisis, which could well become a constitutional one, in a city that has constantly chafed under Beijing’s sovereignty since it was returned to China by former colonial power Britain in 1997. 

Many are furious that the local government invited mainland authorities to rule on a matter that the Hong Kong legislature should have been allowed to independently resolve.
Anger and trepidation over the interference drove thousands onto the territory’s streets Sunday afternoon. 

Skirmishes broke out later that evening, when protesters attempted to approach the gates of the Liaison Office building, forcing the police to disperse the crowd with batons and pepper spray.
Inviting China to rule on the status of Hong Kong legislators “amounts to China directly handpicking legislative candidates,” veteran labor organizer and former pro-democracy lawmaker Lee Cheuk-yan tells TIME. 

“It might be that, even the act of merely calling for ending one-party rule in China or opposing the Chinese Communist Party could well be found as out of line.”
David Zweig, a China observer at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, tells TIME that while Yau and Leung “brought the wrath of China down on themselves,” pushback from Hong Kong people will only increase if Beijing starts clamping down on other lawmakers.
“It’s going to become a huge crisis” if Beijing does further interfere, he says. 

“At this point it’s just still small-scale protest. But if they use this excuse to cull the Legislative Council of people who they don’t like, that’s a whole different ballgame.”
By Thursday morning local time, local media outlets were reporting that the former head of the politically conservative Taxi Drivers and Operators Association had entered an application at Hong Kong’s High Court for a judicial review, seeking to challenge the validity of the oaths taken by eight pro-democracy lawmakers.

China Bullies Hong Kong

Activists like Ms. Yau Wai-ching and Mr. Sixtus Leung are choosing to defend the rule of law; they merit strong international support.

The New York Times

Sixtus Leung, center, with glasses, being blocked from taking his seat in the Hong Kong legislature.

When China took control of Hong Kong from Britain in 1997, it signed an agreement guaranteeing the city a high degree of political autonomy for 50 years under the “one country, two systems” doctrine.  

On Monday, Beijing took a step away from that commitment, putting at risk the political stability and rule-based governance that have made Hong Kong a free-market mecca.
China intervened to effectively block two politicians, Sixtus Leung, 30, and Yau Wai-ching, 25, who were elected in September to the Hong Kong Legislature, from taking their seats. 

Their crime? 

Last month, at a swearing-in ceremony, they displayed a “Hong Kong is not China” banner; Mr. Leung used a derogatory term for China in his oath, and Ms. Yau used an obscenity. 

They support independence for Hong Kong. 

Beijing’s leaders consider such support a national security threat that must be crushed.
Hong Kong is governed under the Basic Law, a charter negotiated by China and Britain before the 1997 handover. 

It ensured Hong Kong its freedoms, including an independent judiciary. 

It also gives China’s Parliament the right to interpret the law, but until Monday, Beijing had not issued its own interpretation of any clause in the Basic Law without being asked for an interpretation by the Hong Kong government or judiciary. 

In this case, it intervened to say that office holders must “sincerely and solemnly” take loyalty oaths.
Beijing’s unilateral move was a heavy-handed attempt to silence democratic voices. 

And it raised new questions about China’s willingness to reinterpret agreements for its own benefit.
In the past two decades, China has often tolerated activities in Hong Kong that it would not allow on the more restricted mainland. 

Even so, Chinese authorities have limited Hong Kong’s autonomy. 

In 2014 and 2015, negotiations over an electoral reform package deeply divided Hong Kong, provoking 79 days of protests. 

The reforms allowed Hong Kong residents to vote directly for their chief executive, the territory’s highest-ranking official, but Beijing refused to give up the power to vet candidates.
China’s tightening hand is undermining Hong Kong’s economic model. 

For 22 years, the city has been rated the world’s freest economy under a Wall Street Journal-Heritage Foundation index because of its rule of law and its open markets. 

Many multinational corporations locate there because of the independence of the courts.
China cannot afford to erode that credibility, especially when its own economy is struggling. 

Nor can China afford to stoke further unrest, which makes Hong Kong less attractive for investment and sends an ominous signal to Taiwan, a self-governing island that Beijing considers a renegade province. 

Activists like Ms. Yau and Mr. Leung are choosing to defend the rule of law; they merit strong international support.
On Tuesday, more than 1,000 lawyers marched silently through Hong Kong to condemn China and support the pro-independence lawmakers. 

Britain and the United States, which 20 years ago promised to hold Beijing to account, must do better than issuing mild statements urging China not to undermine confidence in the city’s autonomy.

Hong Kong lawyers prepare protest march after China inflames political crisis

By Tom Phillips in Beijing

Newly elected lawmakers Yau Wai-ching (R) and Sixtus Leung (L), who have been barred by China from taking their seats in Hong Kong’s parliament.

Beijing’s unprecedented eviction of two pro-independence activists from Hong Kong’s parliament has dealt a severe blow to “political extremists”, a Communist party-controlled newspaper has claimed as members of the city’s legal community prepared to take to the streets in protest.
One day after Beijing effectively barred Sixtus ‘Baggio’ Leung and Yau Wai-ching from taking up their seats in the former colony’s 70-seat legislative council, an editorial in the Global Times praised their ousting, arguing that the appeasement of such voices would plunge the financial hub into confusion and ruin.
The Communist party’s official mouthpiece, the People’s Daily, said Beijing was taking decisive action against an intolerable and unrepentant collection of pro-independence “elements” who posed a direct threat to China’s sovereignty and national unity.
“The central government will not hesitate to take effective measures to crack down on and curb the “Hong Kong independence” [movement],” it said.
Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post echoed those views, describing the intervention, which came in the form of a highly unusual interpretation of the former colony’s mini-constitution, as a “strong tool to stamp out pro-independence forces”.
“Beijing is determined to keep separatists out of public office,” the pro-establishment newspaper said.
Pro-democracy activists have reacted to the intervention with astonishment and dismay while the British government expressed its concern in a brief and cautiously worded statement.
In a statement released on Monday night two of Hong Kong’s leading pro-democracy voices, Nathan Law and Eddie Chu, said Beijing’s ruling was not simply an attack on two pro-independence politicians but rather an attempt to “put the political reins” on the whole of Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement.
“All participants in the democratic movement must stand in solidarity, for no one is safe alone, in the face of such a dictatorship which sees any effort to strive for democracy as a secessionist threat to its rule,” they said.
Speaking to the Guardian, on Monday, Holden Chow, a member of Hong Kong’s pro-Beijing community, suggested Beijing’s intervention was indeed intended to cow those politicians who dared to promote causes such as independence from China.
Chow said Beijing’s move against Yau and Leung should also serve as a warning to those backing “self-determination” -- the idea that Hong Kong’s citizens should have a say in how the former colony is governed after 2047 when the current ‘one country, two systems’ framework under which it has been ruled since handover in 1997 expires.
Chow’s party, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB), has called for a review of whether another pro-democracy politician, Lau Siu-lai, should also be blocked from taking up her seat because of views.
Hong Kong’s latest political crisis has been brewing for months, with the emergence of a new generation of activists who came of age during the 2014 umbrella movement protests and are now pushing for greater autonomy or outright independence from mainland China.
Six such figures claimed seats in the semi-autonomous city’s parliament in early September, including 25-year-old Yau and 30-year-old Leung, who have publicly backed the idea of a complete split with China.
The two firebrand millennials incurred Beijing’s fury last month when they used a swearing in ceremony as a platform to lash out at China’s rulers, unfurling flags that read “Hong Kong is not China” and using language some found offensive to refer to China.
On Monday, Li Fei, the deputy head of China’s most important legislative panel, told reporters the pair were “national and ethnic traitors”, adding ominously: “All traitors and those who sell out their countries will come to no good end.”
While China’s state-run media has applauded the central government’s clamp down, critics have lamented it as a severe blow to Hong Kong’s limited political autonomy and independent judiciary.
“This is the beginning of the end of Hong Kong,” Claudia Mo, an outspoken pro-democracy legislator, wrote in the Guardian.
Members of Hong Kong’s legal community are set to gather outside its high court on Tuesday afternoon before marching through the former colony’s streets in silence and dressed in black.

More Hong Kong lawmakers at risk of losing office as China equates self-determination with independence

By Ellie Ng

Basic Law Committee Chair Li Fei has said that self-determination is the same as Hong Kong independence and therefore contravenes the territory’s mini-constitution. 

Analysts say that lawmakers who challenge China’s sovereignty will be at risk of disqualification despite having been sworn-in.
The comment came shortly after China’s top legislature, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPCSC), voted on and passed the NPCSC’s interpretation of the Basic Law Article 104 of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region with unanimous support on Monday. 

It is the fifth Basic Law interpretation since the 1997 handover.

Self-determination
Li said that concepts such as national self-determination and the Hong Kong nation are “essentially” the same as Hong Kong independence, which would contravene the Basic Law which states that Hong Kong is an “inalienable” part of China. 

It would also damage the territory’s rule of law, social order and economy, he said.
Li added that pledging loyalty to Hong Kong and not China practically means support for Hong Kong independence.
Although Li referred to “national self-determination,” which is advocated by the Youngspiration party, there are concerns that advocates of “democratic self-determination” – such as the Demosistō party and independent lawmakers Lau Siu-lai and Edward Yiu Chung-yim – will also be affected.
The latest NPCSC interpretation of the Basic Law said that oaths taken by public officers such as lawmakers and judges are legally binding. 

It warns that those who make a “false oath” or break their oath will be disqualified from assuming public office and bear “legal consequences.”

Lau Siu-lai. 

‘Lawmakers at risk of disqualification’
Lau Siu-kai, former top policy adviser to the government, said on an RTHK programme on Monday that Beijing needed to interpret the Basic Law to make clear its strong stance against moves that could harm China’s national interests. 

The introduction of a national security law would not have effectively solved the imminent issue, he added.
He said the future of Hong Kong should be decided by the whole of China, and that the territory has no right to become independent.
Lau added that the scale of the pro-independence camp in Hong Kong is not big compared with those in Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang. 

Nonetheless, he said, the Chinese government cannot tolerate pro-independence forces in Hong Kong.

The professor predicted that Youngspiration’s Yau Wai-ching and Baggio Leung Chung-hang are very likely going to be disqualified as lawmakers. 

But the interpretation does not only target the pair; it also aims at provide legal guidance for other oath-taking events, he said.
He cannot rule out the possibility of people filing judicial reviews against lawmakers such as Lau Siu-lai, one of the self-determination advocates in the legislature.
Any lawmakers who advocate independence or challenge China’s sovereignty will be disqualified, as they will have broken the oath, Lau Siu-kai said. 

He added that it would depend on how the authorities handled Monday’s interpretation by the NPCSC.

Criticism
IT sector lawmaker Charles Mok criticised Li’s comment for adding words to the interpretation, which did not mention “self-determination.”
“What do you mean by ‘essentially’? You think you are the law, but let us tell you: you have not solved the problem, but have only made it bigger,” Mok said.
Activist Joshua Wong of the Demosistō party said: “Democratic self-determination means allowing Hongkongers to decide the future of Hong Kong by democratic means. Today, the Chinese Communist Party characterised it as independence.”

Joshua Wong

“It looks like the day when Beijing equates anti-Article-23 [security law] and ‘end one-party rule’ with fueling pro-independence forces is not far away,” Wong said.
Wong’s former colleague Tommy Cheung, one of the student leaders behind the 2014 pro-democracy Occupy protests, said: “If self-determination is independence, then everything is the same as Hong Kong independence.”
A protest against Beijing’s interpretation of the Basic Law was held on Sunday. 

It ended with clashes outside the China Liaison Office, Beijing’s organ in Hong Kong.