For those who are concerned with the deterioration of the political situation in Hong Kong, there is every reason to give up on the city as a hopeless case: in what was described by Chris Patten, the last colonial governor, as “the biggest step so far to obliterate Hong Kong’s freedoms and aspirations for greater democracy under the rule of law,” China’s National People’s Congress rubber-stamped the CCP’s proposal to completely overhaul Hong Kong’s electoral system – a legacy of the colonial rule. The composition of Hong Kong’s legislature had, until recently, remained all in all intact since the handover in 1997; after the political reform in 1991, there had never been a time – except for the interim year immediately after the handover when the Provisional Legislative Council operated – when at least half of the seats in the legislative council were not elected directly by Hong Kong’s citizenry. Given the ascendancy of the functional constituency seats in voting and the arbitrariness of the draconian national security law, it is astonishing that Peking should feel the need to overhaul an electoral system that was already in its tight control.

Wang Chen, vice-chairman of the Chinese rubberstamp legislature, announced that changes were needed as “the rioting and turbulence that occurred in Hong Kong society reveals that the existing electoral system has clear loopholes and deficiencies.” For this reason, Wang imparted that “necessary measures must be taken to improve the electoral system and remove existing institutional risks to ensure the administration of Hong Kong by Hong Kong people with patriots as the main body.” Under the plan, a pro-Peking election committee will be given the power to screen all candidates standing in elections and directly appoint two-third of the Legislative Council. Peking’s intention is as plain as a pikestaff: after Hong Kong voters delivered a landslide victory for pro-democracy campaigners in the district council elections in November 2019, the Chinese authorities felt it necessary to assert its full control over the legislature, even if it meant tearing down the façade of democratic elections in Hong Kong. What dim hopes that, after the promulgation of the catch-all national security law last year and the obliteration of the entire opposition camp that ensued, Peking could ease its grip on Hong Kong’s freedom and democracy surely died a death last week with the passage of the “decision” to ensure a system of “patriots governing Hong Kong.”

Following the decision by the Chinese National People’s Congress to bring in changes to the Hong Kong electoral system, Dominic Raab, the British foreign secretary, made a strong statement to condemn Peking’s action, which he describes as the latest step on the part of the Chinese authorities “to hollow out the space for democratic debate in Hong Kong.” Such gestures, however, can only say so much while the British government continue to demonstrate its reluctance to take solid actions against the Chinese state and the individuals who are responsible for dismantling the democracy in Hong Kong. In contrast, since the passage of the Hong Kong Autonomy Act last year, the US government has already sanctioned more than 50 Chinese and Hong Kong officials over Peking’s ongoing crackdown on the city.

To the consternation of the people of Hong Kong, the “integrated review” of defence and foreign policy, which the British government published on Tuesday (March 16), does not offer much hope either for quelling China’s assertiveness over Hong Kong. Described as “the most far-reaching” review of Britain’s foreign, security and defence policy since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the 114-page document acknowledges the challenges posed by rogue states such as Russia and China, along with terrorism, organized crime, climate change and the “realistic possibility” of another pandemic. Recognizing China as a “systemic challenge”, the review identifies that “China’s increasing power and international assertiveness is likely to be the most significant geopolitical factor of the 2020s.” While the review sets out a convincing account on China being the “biggest state-based threat” to Britain’s economic security, it falls short of identifying China as a belligerent state whose complete disregard of the rules-based international order, violations of human rights treaties, and persecution against the Uyghur people in Xinjiang are nothing short of abominable.

The dire human rights records of China, as well as the geostrategic threat it presents to the free world, do not seem to have attenuated Britain’s eagerness to hold the door open to increasing trade with China. The integrated review maintains that “[o]pen, trading economies like the UK will need to engage with China and remain open to Chinese trade and investment, but they must also protect themselves against practices that have an adverse effect on prosperity and security […] Co-operation with China will also be vital in tackling transnational challenges, particularly climate change and biodiversity loss.” Kwasi Kwarteng, the business secretary, said bluntly that it would not be productive to “pull up the drawbridge” with countries with questionable human rights records, whilst Dominic Raab said Britain would not “hark back” to the frosty relations of the Cold War and would instead look for “constructive engagement” with China. With the UK economy edging towards double-dip recession and Britain being in desperate need of post-Brexit trade deals, it is perhaps unsurprising that the British government should prefer to hold its cards close to its chest and attempt to play a near-impossible game of taming and wooing Peking. While international attention and support may be our last hope to turn the tide on China’s crackdown over Hong Kong’s civil society and democracy, we should perhaps adjust our expectations and rethink just how ready we are for the worst.

(Joseph Long is a London-based writer and linguist from Hong Kong.)

We invite you to join the conversation by submitting columns to our opinion section: [email protected]

Apple Daily reserves the right to refuse, abridge, alter or edit guest opinion columns for accuracy, length, clarity, and style, and the right to withdraw and withhold columns based on the discretion of our editorial page editors.

The opinions of the writers do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editorial board.

---------------------------------

Apple Daily’s all-new English Edition is now available on the mobile app: bit.ly/2yMMfQE

To download the latest version,

iOS: bit.ly/AD_iOS

Android: bit.ly/AD_android

Or search Appledaily in App Store or Google Play