Joshua Wong’s disqualification is well-earned
- The real significance of Wong’s foregone disqualification from this month’s district council elections is that everyone else, including candidates more radical-sounding than him, have been allowed to proceed
The upcoming district council elections are for the pan-democratic coalition to lose. If they can’t make significant headway or if there is enough disturbance or protest violence for the government to delay or even cancel the elections later this month, they have no one else to blame but themselves.
Conspiracy theories abound. But the reality is that it’s not the government trying to cancel the elections. It’s whether the pan-dems can muster enough leadership, or at least persuasion, to convince the most violent anti-government protesters not to interfere with the district elections but to allow them to function normally.
In other words, their worst enemy is not the government but the uncompromising radicals they themselves have created from the ultra-violence of the past few months. Historically, the opposition tends to win big in both legislative and district elections after a major political crisis. This was the case after the massive rally against anti-sedition and subversion legislation under Article 23 of the Basic Law in 2003; and after the 2014 Occupy protests.
District council polls ban was ‘arbitrary’ decision, Joshua Wong says
The idea that the Hong Kong government is trying to disqualify as many opposition candidates as possible or even to cancel the elections have proved to be unfounded. So many stories in the press, both foreign and local, have instead focused on the disqualification of Joshua Wong Chi-fung. It’s often cited as proof of a hard line taken by the Hong Kong and central governments; and even an impending crackdown by Beijing against the protesters.
In context, it proves the exact opposite.
The real significance is that while Wong was disqualified, those who have made public statements as radical or even worse than Wong’s have been approved. Just consider: Vincent Lam, an assistant to opposition lawmaker Claudia Mo Man-ching; Tiffany Yuen Ka-wai, a former vice-chair of Demosisto, which was co-founded by Wong; veteran student activist Tommy Cheung Sau-yin; NeoDemocrat Billy Chan Shiu-yeung; and localist activist Fleco Mo Kai-hong.
They could all have been easily disqualified using liberal interpretations of “autonomy”, “independence” or “revolution” for Hong Kong that were found variously in their public statements. Yet, all of them have been approved as candidates.
Wong was uniquely disqualified because of the high visibility he enjoys with the foreign press and governments while his local popularity or representativeness is questionable. That makes him the bete noire of the Hong Kong and central governments in a case all of its own.
