Wong’s disqualification unmistakably predictable|Comment HK|chinadaily.com.cn

Daniel de Blocq van Scheltinga says Demosisto co-founder’s refusal to disavow violence and swear allegiance to HK was scripted for the Western media

It was all so very predictable, as there really was no other possible outcome. Not only was it predictable – it was exactly the outcome that all sides wanted for very different reasons and created a “Mexican standoff” between the Hong Kong government and one of its harshest critics in the process.

The darling of the Western media, the young activist Joshua Wong Chi-fung, has been barred from presenting himself as a candidate in South Horizons West for the upcoming District Council elections this month.

To qualify as a district councilor candidate, the requirements include pledging to uphold the Basic Law and swearing allegiance to the HKSAR. In many ways, Wong, barely out of his teens but who has been stealing the thunder from veteran opposition politicians old enough to be his parents, continued to show over the past few months that he was not prepared to fulfill either of these requirements.

The Hong Kong election process that requires candidates to fill in a declaration and answer questions regarding their adherence to the Basic Law and the HKSAR is in no manner different from election requirements across the world. From Spain to the United States, elected officials have to swear an oath to uphold their national constitution. Sometimes the required oath is even broader. In the US state of Georgia, for example, the requirement for all elected officials is a loyalty oath “which must state that such person will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of Georgia and is not a member of the Communist Party “, according to the official Georgia state guidelines.

Considering Wong’s rich history of anti-government activism, it was anticipated by all, including the young potential candidate himself, that his candidacy would face the severest scrutiny. First, it is due to his intimate association with Demosisto, of which he is a co-founder and since 2016 its secretary-general. The party has self-determination for Hong Kong as its core aim. Secondly, Wong has consistently refused to condemn the horrific violence, indiscriminate destruction, intimidation and thuggish behavior on the streets that the blackshirt movement he so strongly supports has instigated. In interview after interview, he was directly asked whether or not he condemned such anti-social behavior, and he always evaded giving a clear answer. His tacit support of the blackshirts clearly contravenes the Basic Law.

And thirdly, Wong recently went to Washington, DC, to appeal for direct US government involvement in Hong Kong affairs and the sanctioning of certain Hong Kong government officials. He also supported the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, which would translate into inimical US influence over Hong Kong affairs. Very few governments in the world would allow their elected officials to actively lobby for the intervention of a foreign government in its affairs.

Like many countries in the world, independence and self-determination for a part of the country is contrary to the national constitution and therefore illegal in Hong Kong. The Basques in Spain, the Corsicans in France, and the Quebecois in Canada have all had to be reminded, sometimes violently, of this uncompromising fact at one time or another.

Whether or not Wong still supports Hong Kong independence, which violates both the Basic Law of the HKSAR and the Constitution of the PRC, is a key question in determining his eligibility to run for the position of district councilor. He and his paymasters knew this, and instead of unambiguously stating that he in no way or manner would ever support Hong Kong independence, he purposefully waffled and as usual evaded giving a clear answer.

The returning officer repeated the same point on several occasions, giving Wong ample opportunity to clarify his stance, but the result was always the same vagueness and ambiguity. As the official summary clearly states: “He failed to demonstrate a clear change of stance” and “refused to clearly distinguish his own aspirations from that of Demosisto”.

While the requests for supplementary information were indeed complied with in a timely manner, they did not result in any lifting of the fog: The vague statement that “the independence of Hong Kong can be an option for self-determination” was certainly not helpful in obtaining the green light.

And that was exactly the point. Another candidate facing similar scrutiny, Eddie Chu Hoi-dick, was also asked whether or not he would renounce the advocacy of self-determination, and his reply was as simple as it was clear: “Yes.” His application to run was approved.

It would have been easy for Wong to follow the same easy way out. However, he deliberately remained vague, knowing that this would lead to his disqualification. This was all part of the master plan, to create ammunition to produce more propaganda fodder to accuse the Hong Kong government of “cracking down on democracy”. True to form, Wong immediately told a prepared news conference that his disqualification was evidence that Beijing was manipulating the District Council elections, and that it was a “political order that Beijing had handed down” to the officer, whose role was therefore relegated to “thought police”. This was immediately reported across the global press, suggesting that Hong Kong was in the process of becoming a police state. The most ludicrous aspect in this political theater, though, was that most foreign press would simply report it as such without providing the all-important context, which would show Wong’s complaints to be an unscrupulous sham.

The facts speak for themselves. Other candidates with anti-government views were scrutinized and thereafter deemed qualified to run because they respected the fundamental requirements of allegiance to both the Basic Law and the HKSAR. It was very important that the Hong Kong government upheld this requirement, and strongly underlined it by disqualifying Wong. To counter the inevitable propaganda that Wong and his allies will try to exploit his false claim of victimization, the Hong Kong government needs to act in a much more proactive manner and clearly explain the reasoning and legal fundamentals behind this decision to the world, most notably, that Wong only had to denounce Hong Kong independence once and for all and swear allegiance to the Basic Law and to the HKSAR for him to be qualified. But he adamantly refused to comply with this elementary requirement, inherent in all elective offices around the world.

The author is a specialist in international public law, and an adviser on China-related matters to both the private and public sectors. He has lived in Hong Kong for over 18 years.

(HK Edition 11/04/2019 page5)