Hong Kong has bigger problems than Trump

You think the US election was the apocalypse? Take a look at Hong Kong. Hong Kong recently had its Legislative Council (LegCo) elections, in which two candidates from the Youngspiration party, Leung and Yau, were elected. It is important to note that their platforms focus heavily on achieving democratic self-determination for the future of Hong Kong. The two elected legislators then had the brilliant idea of protesting through their oaths. Standing in front of a “Hong Kong is NOT China” banner, they took their oaths while replacing “People’s Republic of China” with “people’s re-fucking of Chee-na”, Chee-na being a derogatory term used by the Empire of Japan against China.

Their oaths were deemed invalid by the LegCo Chair and they were due to retake their oaths at the next Council meeting. This was not the first time that a Legislator would have been allowed to retake their oath.

However, the Department of Justice suddenly filed for a judicial review of the chair’s decision to allow for the second oath, completely disregarding the authority of the LegCo Chair as well as the most basic of government principles: separation of powers. Yet supporters of the government argue that the Basic Law does not explicitly mention separation of powers. Rita Fan, a pro-Beijing politician, stated that the Basic Law only guarantees judicial independence, “meaning that judicial decisions should not be affected by the government or any influential people in Hong Kong.” Yet even before the court could make a decision on the judicial review case, the National People’s Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) used its power to interpret the Basic Law, specifically Article 104 regarding oath-taking, as follows: “No public office shall be assumed … by anyone who fails to lawfully and validly take the oath or who declines to take the oath.”

“An oath taker must take the oath sincerely and solemnly, and must accurately, completely and solemnly read out the oath prescribed by law.”

“An oath taker is disqualified forthwith from assuming the public office specified in the Article if he or she declines to take the oath.”

“If the oath taken is determined as invalid, no arrangement shall be made for retaking the oath.” Supporters of the government insist that the NPCSC’s power to interpretation is written in the law, the interpretation has simply cleared up the misunderstandings regarding Article 104, and people with nothing to hide shouldn’t have to fear an interpretation. Additionally, they argue that opponents of the interpretation are doing so in support of the two legislators’ actions.

But there’s the thing: I couldn’t give less of a fuck about those two idiots. This story has escalated far past the fate of Leung and Yau, whose political careers are without a doubt over. They picked a bad fight and are paying the consequences. This is about the Hong Kong government’s inability to uphold justice, rule of law, and separation of powers, which are core principles of a functioning democracy.

Firstly, while the NPCSC has always had the power to interpret the Basic Law, there are set provisions for this power as listed in Article 158, which state that the courts of the Region shall seek an interpretation through the Court of Final Appeal if it concerns “affairs which are the responsibility of the Central People’s Government, or concerning the relationship between the Central Authorities and the Region”. Nothing within Article 104 corresponds to those two criteria, making this an obvious step taken by the Central People’s Government to deny not only the two legislators in question, but also any other candidates of public office that they deem unfit, according to their own interpretation. What makes an oath sincere and solemn? This gives the person administering the oath the power to disqualify anyone they would like.

Trump may have said that he wouldn’t accept the results of the election, but the frightening reality in Hong Kong is that the government now has the power to actually deny the results of a democratic election and ‘post-select’ candidates. Furthermore, this interpretation before the end of the court case is a clear violation of the judicial independence of the Hong Kong judiciary. In the end, the courts will rule in agreement with the interpretation, and this ruling will serve as a precedent for all future cases, effectively validating the ‘post-selection’ method. That night, between 8000 (police estimate) and 13000 (organisers estimate) people protested against the interpretation. This devolved into violent clashes between the protesters and the police, reminiscent of the Umbrella Revolution. Bricks were thrown, pepper was sprayed, people were arrested, freedoms were crushed. Just the usual in the Special Administrative Region. There aren’t many options left for the people of Hong Kong. Accept the status quo and watch our liberties, freedoms, and rule of law slowly deteriorate. Give up, and let Hong Kong become the Chinese City of Xianggang. Or we could fight back. The question is how? How do we fight against a growing superpower with a choking grip in every nook and cranny of our beloved city? Peaceful protests and even riots have proven ineffective in the past, so what’s next? What can we do when every level of society from universities to the Legislative Council is segregated politically?

I certainly don’t have an answer for these steeping questions, but I sincerely and solemnly hope that it isn’t “nothing”. In the meantime, all I can do is helplessly sit here and watch my home slowly fall apart, brick by brick, law by law.