Tuesday, August 18, 2020

Why the people are protesting in Hong Kong

This article is by

Share this article

Article Contributor(s)

Syed Ahmed Uzair

Article Title

Why the people are protesting in Hong Kong

Publisher

Global Views 360

Publication Date

August 18, 2020

URL

Signs condemning police brutality - Tensions rise in Hong Kong after the government banned protest

Signs condemning police brutality - Tensions rise in Hong Kong after the government banned protest | Source: Joseph Chan via Unsplash

Hong Kong is a special administrative region of the People’s Republic of China located on the Eastern Pearl River Delta of the South China Sea. From 1842 to 1997, the region was under the control of the Britishers.

In 1997 the  sovereignty of Hong Kong was transferred to China with the principle of “one country, two systems” which provided some degree of autonomy for Hong Kong. This system was supposed to be in force for a period of minimum fifty years from 1997 to 2047. However, under President Xi Jinping, China has been aggressively making such rules and regulations which increase the influence of mainland China on administration of Hong Kong.

In June 2020, China started implementing a new national security law for which potentially severely limits the independence of the judiciary of Hong Kong. Under the proposed law, Hong Kong’s Chief Executive, who is answerable to Beijing, gets the power to appoint judges for specific security cases. It also calls for setting up a security agency in Hong Kong to resolve existing conflicts and challenges faced by Beijing with respect to Hong Kong.

China defended the law by citing that it would prevent and punish secession, subversion as well as foreign infiltration. Beijing has argued that these three factors are responsible for fuelling unrest in the city since last year. Critics however have very different opinions regarding the law. For them this law directly attacks the relative autonomy granted to Hong Kong after Britain handed it back to China in 1997.

The law can potentially be employed to target anti-government protests and other forms of dissent in the region of Hong Kong. It has instilled fear in the minds of the Hong Kong residents that the Chinese Communist Party is trying to curb the freedom of speech and protest in the region in an effort to bring Hong Kong under its authoritarian rule.

Many protesters are of the belief that the local governments of Hong Kong are no longer autonomous and act on the whims of Beijing. They accuse the city's top leader, Chief Executive Carrie Lam, who is appointed by Beijing, of acting only in the interest of mainland China while ignoring to safeguard the autonomy of Hong Kong.

The protests Hong Kong witnessed in May 2020, were quite similar to the ones the city witnessed almost a year ago when China proposed an extradition law for Hong Kong. The law was eventually scrapped after a flurry of protests. However the protest against the territory’s existing leadership turned into a protest against Chinese ruling party’s efforts to merge Hong Kong with mainland China.

At its core, the protest movement is aimed at protecting Hong Kong’s autonomy and resisting encroachment from the mainland. However, China’s adamant approach in bringing Hong Kong under the mainland amidst a falling economy and rising agitation and police brutality has had a negative impact on the residents.

Many Hong Kong protesters have started moving to countries who are willing to adopt them over fears of being under scrutiny from the Chinese government. Many of the skilled workers are now looking at ways to exit the city and move to better alternatives. More than half of the people from the age group of 18 to 24 are considering options outside of Hong Kong owing to the uncertainty surrounding the region’s fate.

Despite the protest by citizens and condemnation and actions by the US, Britain and other Western countries, it seems unlikely that China is going to halt its efforts to dismantle the autonomy of Hong Kong and effectively merge it with the mainland China.

Support us to bring the world closer

To keep our content accessible we don't charge anything from our readers and rely on donations to continue working. Your support is critical in keeping Global Views 360 independent and helps us to present a well-rounded world view on different international issues for you. Every contribution, however big or small, is valuable for us to keep on delivering in future as well.

Support Us

Share this article

Read More

February 4, 2021 4:55 PM

Suppressing the Minority Voting: An effective discrimination tactic of the US Conservatives

The recent protests over George Floyd’s death and reactions of the conservatives against the protest laid bare the systemic injustice and oppression faced by the people of color in the USA.

The other, albeit invisible form of discrimination perpetuated by the conservative political establishment in the USA is “Minority Voter Suppression”.

Though it may seem improbable that long after the Jim Crow laws are junked and Civil Right Laws are in place, the effort to disenfranchise the Black people is still going on.

The major piece of legislation which protected minorities from electoral exploitation was the Voter Registration Act which underpins the basic ideal of a universal adult franchise by specifically addressing and combating voting discrimination.

To ensure the representation to minority communities, this act mandated that “At-Large Elections”, where the whole of the jurisdiction elects all of the city council, were replaced by the single member districts in which each community selects a person to represent them in the city council.

It was also prohibited to draw the voting district in such a way that  minorities could be clubbed in only a few of the districts. It was also made mandatory for those states which have a history of discrimination to get pre-clearance from the justice department before changing their voting laws.

This law, however, lost its power in a process which began in 1980. In 1980 the Supreme Court ruled that at-large elections were not unconstitutional, on their own. In 1995, the Court began restricting the construction of majority minority districts on grounds that it segregates people on the basis of race.

In 2008, the court ruled that a photo voter ID law in Indiana was constitutional and was in state interest to protect against voter fraud (research shows that photo voter IDs provide disincentive to vote for people of color). The voter ID law requires the voters to have a government-issued photo ID to cast a ballot.

In 2013, the Supreme Court scrapped the part of the law which stated that some states (which had an alleged history of discrimination) needed federal preclearance in any changes of their voting laws, meaning that the state laws would need approval from the federal government before being put into practice. This was done so citing that the methods which determined discriminatory states were invalid.

All of these slowly chipped away at the laws, and especially the 2013 Shelby County vs Holder case which led to a host of issues whVoter Suppression is Still One of the Greatest Obstacles to a More Just Americaich directly/indirectly keep a significant proportion of minorities from voting. Few of such actions are closure or relocation of precincts in majority black areas, purge of minority voters from the voter lists, and elimination of Sunday early voting days which are preferred by black voters.

There have been attempts to restrict registration drives in Tennessee on the basis that many of the forms were incomplete.

There have also been laws enacted which needed people to participate regularly in elections to keep their voting rights and reply to a letter sent to their residence, which makes it difficult for Black and Hispanics due to obscure areas and the fact that they’re half as likely than other people to get a day off work to vote.

The governor of Georgia, Brian Kemp, has been accused of using intimidation tactics to scare minority communities.

In Texas, the acting secretary of state said that he had a list of 95,000 non-citizens who were registered for voting in the state, and 58,000 of them had already cast a vote. That claim was proven untrue when it was noted that there were tens of thousands of people who were naturalized citizens.

In many states, felons are not allowed to vote even after they have served their sentence, and in Florida felons are allowed to vote only if they have paid an array of fees after serving their sentence, which sets an economic bar on their ability to vote.

This is evident that forces working against the equal rights for the minority communities are still working at full force to reverse the gains of civil right movements. The fight for the unhindered voting rights for the minority communities in the USA at the social, political, and judicial front will continue in the foreseeable future.

Read More