Hong Kong disqualifies four pro-democracy legislators
Hong Kong has disqualified four pro-democracy legislators. It comes after Beijing passed a resolution that would allow the local government to remove politicians from their positions if they’re deemed a threat to national security.
The disqualification came after meetings of China’s National People’s Congress Standing Committee on 10 and 11 November.
China’s official Xinhua news agency said the committee passed a resolution to disqualify those who:
- Support Hong Kong’s independence.
- Refuse to acknowledge China’s sovereignty over the city.
- Commit acts that threaten national security.
- Ask external forces to interfere in the city’s affairs.
“This is clearly in breach of basic law”
The four politicians are Alvin Yeung, Dennis Kwok, Kwok Ka-ki and Kenneth Leung. They confirmed that they were disqualified in a news conference. Dennis Kwok said:
In terms of legality and constitutionality, obviously from our point of view this is clearly in breach of basic law and our rights to participate in public affairs, and a failure to observe due process
Read on...
Support us and go ad-free
On Monday 9 November, 19 politicians from the pro-democracy camp said they would resign en masse if Beijing moved to disqualify any pro-democracy legislators.
A mass resignation by the pro-democracy camp would leave Hong Kong’s legislature with only pro-Beijing politicians. The pro-Beijing camp already makes up a majority of the city’s legislature. So a mass resignation would allow the passing of bills favoured by Beijing without opposition.
Postponed election
Earlier in 2020, the four now-disqualified pro-democracy politicians were barred from running for legislative elections. The elections were originally meant to happen in September before the government stated it would postpone them by a year. This was due to the coronavirus (Covid-19) situation. The four men later remained in their posts following the postponement.
The pro-democracy camp criticised the postponement as an attempt to block them from taking a majority of seats in the legislature. It came after they had held an unofficial pro-democracy primary to decide which candidates to field. 600,000 voters had participated in that process.
Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam was expected to hold a news conference to address the disqualifications.
Support us and go ad-freeWe know everyone is suffering under the Tories - but the Canary is a vital weapon in our fight back, and we need your support
The Canary Workers’ Co-op knows life is hard. The Tories are waging a class war against us we’re all having to fight. But like trade unions and community organising, truly independent working-class media is a vital weapon in our armoury.
The Canary doesn’t have the budget of the corporate media. In fact, our income is over 1,000 times less than the Guardian’s. What we do have is a radical agenda that disrupts power and amplifies marginalised communities. But we can only do this with our readers’ support.
So please, help us continue to spread messages of resistance and hope. Even the smallest donation would mean the world to us.
-
Show Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to leave a comment.Join the conversationPlease read our comment moderation policy here.
This is a rather mealy-mouthed account. Was the author afraid of offending Beijing?
I do not know enough about Hong Kong politics to understand exactly what is happening and this article leaves all the important stuff unexplained.
Here’s what I think is going on: Hong Kong had rights guaranteed under international treaty. These rights included a degree of devolved government – in local matters, Hong Kong voters could elect their own regional govt through a democratic process which was generally trusted by the voters. Then Beijing decided unilaterally to change the rules, to reduce Hong Kong independence, end democracy-as-it-was-done-in-HK, and impose a more direct rule. This sparked a backlash from Hong Kong people who made ‘umbrella protests’ and generally fought as best they could using non-violent means to hold on to their democracy. Fast forward. Beijing blocked four pro-democracy candidates from standing for election. Their collegues decided to resign in solidarity. Now the only politicians in the HK legislature are pro-Beijing people. Have I got that basically right?
My response is (1) I generally support democracy since it generally provides a better life for ‘ordinary people’ against the abuses of the powerful. (2) I would therefore generally support pro-democracy politicians and popular protests in defence of democracy (3) But many groups claim to be ‘democratic’ which I utterly loathe and despise (4) Are the pro-democracy politicians in HK people I’d support if I were a HK voter, or are they more like Trump, Putin, Erdogan and others who use the rhetoric of democracy but live like dictators? (5) Beijing implies these pro-democracy politicians are a ‘threat to the state’ – is this self-serving nonsense or are some of these anti-Beijing activists actually agents provocateurs, CIA stooges etc? I think it unlikely but what is the evidence either way?
I see an analogy with the UK. Here Johnson (i.e. Gove/Cummings) is determined to reverse devolution and block Scottish independence to save the Union. ‘Saving the Union’ is meaningless mystification – it really means imposing centralised control on a people who have consistently rejected it through repeated ballots. Johnson/London seem to be planning to do to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland what Xi/Beijing are doing to Hong Kong. I support the end of the Union as it has no benefit to the ordinary citizen. If I think of the HK pro-democracy politicians as analogues of the SNP then my sympathy is all with them. This is true even if the SNP is more rightwing on some policy issues than I am myself.
I come here to learn about stuff. Frustrating that the foreign reporting is not very helpful. Oh well, guess I have to do my own homework.