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?”

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.