Hong Kong's puberty

One evening in Hong Kong, we were riding the tram and passing by a group of protesters in Sai Ying Pun. Later we heard in the news that 8,000 (according to the police) or 13,000 (according to the rally organisers) people gathered there, some carrying a yellow umbrella. The police used pepper spray to disperse protesters. Once we got back to the hotel, I went and looked up a bit on the reasons for this protests and found that Hong Kong is actually in a bit of a funny political position.

Protest

Protest

Protest

Protest

Hong Kong and the People's Republic of China

As most of us probably know, Hong Kong used to be a British colony. In 1841, the British conquered this region during the Opium wars. During World War II, it expected an attack from the Japanese, but Winston Churchill reassured everyone that Hong Kong was like an "impenetrable fortress". After a battle of only 18 days, it was conquered by the Japanese forces and occupied for a few years. After WWII, the People's Republic of China and Great Britain signed an agreement in which it said that Hong Kong would become a part of China, but in a "two systems, one country" format. This basically means that Hong Kong can decide all non-constitutional laws on its own, except for issues regarding defence, foreign affairs and the like. Something of a constitution was agreed on called the Basic Law which describes this autonomous governance. There remains however a loophole: the law also states that when there are uncertainties, it should be interpreted by the Chinese Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC, the permanent committee of the Chinese parliament). In 2014, such an uncertainty arose regarding the election of Hong Kong's Chief Executive, the head of the government. It's a bit complicated why, but in the end the NPCSC issued an interpretation which stated that after the election, the Chief Executive-elect will have to be appointed by the Chinese government. A lot of people in Hong Kong found this outrageous and it caused protests from September through to December with sometimes more than 100,000 protesters. In the end, the decision remained, with a large portion of the public unsatisfied and youth becoming aware of their civil rights and responsibilities. Partly as a result, the localist movement was formed, a political movement that opposes the increasing involvement of the Chinese government and wants to preserve Hong Kong's culture and autonomy. In 2016, elections took place but six localists where disqualified from entering the election on the grounds of their support for Hong Kong independence. Six other localists did get elected though. Politics like we know it Five of these localists and some of other parties used the moment they had to take their oaths as an opportunity to protest by either shouting slogans or making extra statements before or after taking their oaths. In their oaths, members-elect must swear to uphold the Basic Law and swear allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China as required by Article 104 of the Basic Law. Two of them of the Youngspiration party, pledged allegiance to the "Hong Kong nation" before they took the oath while displaying a banner that read "Hong Kong is not China". They also mispronounced "People's Republic of China" as "people's re-fucking of Chee-na" three times. It's a variation of the term Shina used by Japan for China which is deemed derogatory. As a result, both of their oaths were declared invalid. The pro-independence camp argued that the invalidation of the oaths was an unlawful decision. The pro-Beijing camp on the other hand went even further and asked to also invalidate the oaths of two others. One had supposedly raised his tone while swearing allegiance to China, sounding like he was asking a question, and the other paused for six seconds in between every word. In total, no less than five legislators were to retake their oaths on the next meeting of the LegCo (Legislative Councel, Hong Kong's parliament). But just when they were about to, the pro-Beijing camp walked out of the room, causing the meeting to be adjourned. The next day, two of the five took their oaths and after that the pro-Beijing camp had staged a second walkout. When they came outside, a radical democrat legislator threw luncheon meat at them in protest. The pro-Beijing camp threatened to keep doing these walkouts, so the LegCo president decided to postpone the oath-taking, although it should have been the highest priority according to the Basic Law. Despite that, the two Youngspiration legislators managed their way in the next day with the help of party members and reporters. The president asked them to leave the room. They denied. Someone else supported them. The president asked all three of them to leave. They denied. So the president decided to adjourn the meeting. Again. The next day, the two Youngspirations stormed into the chamber and tried to retake the oaths on themselves. The president relocated the meeting to another room. They tried to enter it. Six security guards were injured and the police was called. The meeting was adjourned again. Enter China The night before they first were to retake their oaths, the government had sued the two Youngspiration legislators. Two weeks later, after this whole mess I just described, the court hearing took place and the judge said the matter should be resolved by a political process rather than by a judicial process. He also said an interpretation of the Basic Law by the NPCSC might be necessary. The chairman of the NPCSC decided an interpretation was needed and the opinion of the Basic Law Committee of the NPCSC was requested. Two days later, some localist, pro-democracy and student groups formed a joint protest of between 8,000 and 14,000 people against this uncalled for interference of the Chinese government. This is the protest that we saw taking place in front of the Liasion Office, the office that forms the connection between the Hong Kong government and the Chinese government. The day after that, the interpretation was made public, stating that the person taking the oath should take it in a sincere and solemn manner with accurate, complete and solemn phrases such as "uphold the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China" and "bear allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China" as stated in the statutory oath. If the oath-taker refuses to take the oath, he or she cannot retake the oath and shall be disqualified from assuming public office. It also stated that the oath administrator has the duty to confirm whether the oath-taking is carried out legally and complies with this interpretation and Hong Kong law. This "interpretation" has been criticised of not actually being an interpretation but effectively being an amendment to the Basic Law, a power the NPCSC doesn't really have. Well, actually the Basic Law sets out the procedure for amending it, but the procedure is such an onerous one that it has never been invoked since the 1997 handover. Because of this, the day after that, hundreds of lawyers joined a silent march against the amendment as it sets a "terrible precedent". The Basic Law actually states seven cases in which a lawmaker may be disqualified, but non-compliance with the oath-taking procedure is not one of those. This "interpretation" adds an eighth case. In the end, the judge made its final ruling that the two Youngspirations would lose their seats and not be able to retake their oaths. Maybe this result could be inspiring for some Belgian politicians to provoke Filip Dewinter to become just as creative when taking his oath the next time.