[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HONG KONG'S SUMMER OF DISCONTENT AND
U.S. POLICY RESPONSES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 17, 2019
__________
Printed for the use of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available at www.cecc.gov or www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
37-960 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
.....................................................
CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS
House
Senate
JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts, MARCO RUBIO, Florida, Cochairman
Chairman JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio TOM COTTON, Arkansas
THOMAS SUOZZI, New York STEVE DAINES, Montana
TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey TODD YOUNG, Indiana
BEN McADAMS, Utah DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
CHRISTOPHER SMITH, New Jersey JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
BRIAN MAST, Florida GARY PETERS, Michigan
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri ANGUS KING, Maine
EXECUTIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS
Not yet appointed
Jonathan Stivers, Staff Director
Peter Mattis, Deputy Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Statements
Page
Opening Statement of Hon. James P. McGovern, a U.S.
Representative from Massachusetts; Chairman, Congressional-
Executive Commission on China.................................. 1
Statement of Hon. Marco Rubio, a U.S. Senator from Florida;
Cochairman, Congressional-Executive Commission on China........ 3
Statement of Hon. Christopher Smith, a U.S. Representative from
New Jersey..................................................... 6
Joshua Wong, Secretary-General of Demosisto, pro-democracy
activist, and Umbrella Movement leader......................... 9
Denise Ho, pro-democracy activist and award-winning Cantopop
singer and actress............................................. 11
Sunny Cheung, spokesperson for the Hong Kong Higher Institutions
International Affairs Delegation............................... 13
Sharon Hom, Executive Director of Human Rights in China and
Professor of Law Emerita at City University of New York School
of Law......................................................... 14
Daniel Garrett, Ph.D., political scientist and author of
``Counter-Hegemonic Resistance in China's Hong Kong:
Visualizing Protest in the City'' (2014)....................... 17
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements
Wong, Joshua..................................................... 49
Ho, Denise....................................................... 50
Cheung, Sunny.................................................... 52
Garrett, Daniel.................................................. 56
Hom, Sharon...................................................... 65
McGovern, Hon. James P........................................... 72
Rubio, Hon. Marco................................................ 73
Smith, Hon. Christopher.......................................... 74
Submissions for the Record
Witness Biographies.............................................. 77
(iii)
HONG KONG'S SUMMER OF DISCONTENT AND U.S. POLICY RESPONSES
----------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2019
Congressional-Executive
Commission on China,
Washington, DC.
The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 10:00
a.m., in room 419, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Representative James P. McGovern, Chairman, presiding.
Also present: Senator Rubio, Cochairman, Senators King,
Daines, Young, and Peters, and Representatives Suozzi, Smith,
and McAdams.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES P. McGOVERN, A U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE FROM MASSACHUSETTS; CHAIRMAN, CONGRESSIONAL-
EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA
Chairman McGovern. The committee will come to order. Good
morning and welcome to today's hearing on Hong Kong's Summer of
Discontent and U.S. Policy Responses.
This is the second China Commission hearing this year on
the situation in Hong Kong. During our May hearing, the
Commission heard compelling testimony from Hong Kong pro-
democracy advocates, including Martin Lee and Nathan Law, who
expressed serious concerns about the extradition bill that was
quickly moving toward becoming law at that time. That
legislation would have put anyone in Hong Kong, including U.S.
citizens, at risk of extradition to mainland China where a lack
of due process and custodial abuse have been well documented.
Over the last 16 weeks, millions of people from all walks
of life in Hong Kong have taken to the streets in an
unprecedented and sustained show of unity. The protesters have
inspired the world and have risked their lives, their health,
their jobs, and their education to fight for the future of Hong
Kong. Thank you for your courage and thank you for your
bravery. We stand in solidarity with you.
As protests continued throughout the summer, Hong Kong
police used excessive and unnecessary force to target those
engaged in peaceful demonstrations. The U.N. High Commissioner
for Human Rights has called for an investigation. The U.K. has
suspended export licenses for the sale of tear gas and crowd-
control equipment. And the House of Representatives--
Congressman Chris Smith and I--have introduced H.R. 4270, the
PROTECT Hong Kong Act, that would prohibit U.S. exports of
police equipment to Hong Kong. U.S. companies should not be
selling equipment used to violently crack down on pro-democracy
protesters. I hope Congress will pass this legislation as soon
as possible.
Although consideration of the extradition bill has been
suspended, the people of Hong Kong are calling for greater
accountability and democratic participation. It's my
understanding that the Hong Kong protesters have outlined five
demands of Hong Kong and Chinese authorities. I look forward to
hearing from today's witnesses what those demands are
specifically, what progress has been made by the Chinese and
Hong Kong governments on achieving them, what remains to be
done, and how we in Congress and the international community
might be helpful.
The ``one country, two systems'' framework was enshrined in
the 1984 Sino-British Declaration and Hong Kong's Basic Law.
This is an international treaty signed by the Chinese
government to allow Hong Kong a high degree of autonomy with
the ultimate aim of electing its Chief Executive and
Legislative Council members by universal suffrage.
The 2014 Umbrella Movement protests were sparked by the
Chinese government reneging on its commitment to make Hong Kong
more democratic. It is the continuing erosion of Hong Kong's
autonomy and rule of law that fuels the protests in Hong Kong
today.
Over the last five years, the Chinese government has
prioritized control over Hong Kong by stifling free expression
and restricting the space for democratic participation. We have
seen the prosecution and sentencing of pro-democracy leaders,
the disqualification and removal of pro-democracy legislators,
and the introduction of a new national anthem bill that would
restrict free expression.
Anson Chan, the former Hong Kong Chief Secretary and
Legislative Council member recently offered this insight: ``If
only Beijing would understand what makes Hong Kong tick, what
are the values we hold dear, then they can use that energy to
benefit both China and Hong Kong. Instead, they have this
mentality of control.''
While the protests were sparked by concerns about the
extradition bill, the heart of the discontent is that Hong
Kong's political leaders do not represent and are not
accountable to the people. Instead, Hong Kong's leaders are
beholden to the Chinese government.
Millions of people would not have to protest in the streets
if they could freely choose their political leaders. I hope the
Chinese government would understand that stability and
prosperity can be achieved if Hong Kong's autonomy is respected
and if the Chief Executive and Legislative Council members were
elected without Chinese influence over candidate selection.
In light of the continuing erosion of Hong Kong's autonomy
and the recent violence against peaceful protesters, I believe
it is time for the United States to reconsider its policies
toward Hong Kong. U.S.-Hong Kong relations are governed by the
U.S.-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 that commits the United
States to treating Hong Kong as a separate customs territory
from the rest of China so long as Hong Kong remains
sufficiently autonomous.
I am proud to support H.R. 3289, the Hong Kong Human Rights
and Democracy Act, sponsored by Senator Rubio and Congressman
Smith. The legislation would require the Secretary of State to
certify on an annual basis that Hong Kong is sufficiently
autonomous in order to justify special economic, financial, and
trade treatment different from mainland China under U.S. law.
It is time we put the Chinese government on annual notice
that further erosion of autonomy or a crackdown in Hong Kong
will cause the city and by extension mainland China to lose its
special economic and trade arrangement with the United States.
Over the years, Hong Kong has prospered and become the
financial center of Asia because of its strong commitment to
the rule of law, good governance, human rights, and an open
economic system. The erosion of this unique system threatens
not only the people who attempt to speak out, but the economic
vitality of the city itself.
So to be clear, we stand together with the people of Hong
Kong and, indeed, all the people of China when we express our
concerns about the human rights violations of the Hong Kong and
Chinese governments. Our focus today is doing right by the
people of Hong Kong as they seek a democratic future that
protects Hong Kong's autonomy and rule of law.
At this point, I would like to yield to the Cochair,
Senator Rubio.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARCO RUBIO, A U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA;
COCHAIRMAN, CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA
Cochairman Rubio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening
this important hearing and for your willingness to host it here
on the Senate side.
Chairman McGovern. It's kind of nice over here.
Cochairman Rubio. It is quiet.
Chairman McGovern. Yes.
[Laughter.]
Cochairman Rubio. A little different pace. We had four
votes yesterday. Today people will be exhausted.
Chairman McGovern. Yes.
[Laughter.]
Cochairman Rubio. But anyway, I want to thank you for doing
this. I look forward to our continued partnership on this
Commission, and particularly as it relates to this topic.
I also want to thank all of our witnesses, especially those
who are on the front lines and have even been jailed multiple
times, and we'll hear from them today about the things that
have been done against them. And your commitment to freedom and
democracy is inspiring. It really is inspiring for those of us
who live in this republic. It reminds us of why so many of us
serve here and what we seek to preserve around the world. And
that's why we want to stand with you.
Your fight and the fight of your fellow Hong Kongers is the
fight of every human who yearns for liberty and dignity and
demands that their fundamental rights be respected and upheld.
Let me say at the outset to the people of Hong Kong, We stand
with you, and by we, I mean this is a bicameral, bipartisan
commitment, as you will see today and have seen in the past few
days, on these efforts across both political parties and every
major figure. And not only that, but many Americans stand with
you in your fight to keep your long-cherished freedom.
It was only a few months ago in May that we held a hearing
on Hong Kong. It was titled ``Hong Kong's Future in the
Balance: Eroding Autonomy and Challenges to Human Rights.'' At
that hearing and before, it was highlighted on the facts that
the Chinese Communist Party has been eroding Hong Kong's
autonomy and freedoms guaranteed by the Joint Declaration and
by the Basic Law.
The May hearing discussed the extradition bill that, had it
passed, would have exposed everyone in Hong Kong--and that
includes, by the way, 80,000 Americans who reside there--it
would have exposed them to the justice system or the so-called
justice system of the Chinese Communist Party. The same justice
system that routinely tortures those in its custody, that
denies critically needed medical care, that arrests lawyers for
serving their clients, and that places the desires of the
Communist Party above every and any demand for justice.
The proposed bill exposed the very real and increasing
threat to Hong Kong's autonomy. But few of us could have
anticipated the events that would follow. Since June, the
people of Hong Kong have bravely taken to the streets for 15
straight weeks and more than 400 separate demonstrations
involving more than 8 million people of every age and every
background.
Recently there have been very credible reports that have
emerged of the police's brutal treatment of demonstrators while
in their custody. This weekend, for example, we saw images of
the police holding down a protester whose head was bleeding and
spraying pepper spray into the wound, which is an act of total
cruelty. We watched the police throw tear gas grenades at
journalists, many of whom were well far away from the
demonstrators.
Since the 21st of July, pro-Beijing thugs associated with
organized crime and the Party's United Front activities have
violently confronted demonstrators, journalists, and innocent
passersby, and the police just looked on, looked the other way,
and in some cases even cooperated. And while detained
demonstrators have been beaten or their faces smashed into the
concrete, journalists have photographed these same thugs in
``detention,'' smoking and playing on their cell phones after
attacking journalists and demonstrators.
Although Hong Kong's Chief Executive may have promised
today to withdraw the extradition bill when the Legislative
Council reconvenes in October, the government's violent
response to the demonstrations demands accountability. And yet,
Lam and the Hong Kong government refuse to press for any
accountability for the violence by Hong Kong security forces
that was committed and continues to be committed against
peaceful protesters.
The Chief Executive did not listen to the outcry against
the bill in Hong Kong since its introduction, but rather tried
to ram it through the legislature.
So what's at stake? The Hong Kong government's stubbornness
in the face of public outcry has launched one of the greatest
people-power movements we have witnessed in recent memory. The
actions of the government and the people demonstrate that there
are two Hong Kongs. The Hong Kong of the government, totally
leveraged by the Chinese government, has proven that it is not
committed to a free and autonomous future for Hong Kong, nor is
it one of rule of law or of justice. The other Hong Kong, the
real one, is the one of its people--the students and youth
activists, artists, journalists, doctors and nurses, lawyers,
accountants, business people--from every walk of life, the
city's people, of all ages, who have shown us a Hong Kong with
a vibrant civic life, prepared to stand up for its own
autonomy, democracy, and liberty.
It is clear that these two very different Hong Kongs are
colliding, and therefore the city is at a crossroads. The fact
of the matter is maintaining Hong Kong's autonomy is critical
to U.S. interests and it also has real implications for the
United States and for the rest of the world.
Hong Kong's status as an international trade and investment
hub is threatened just as long as the long-cherished freedoms
of the Hong Kong people are being threatened. Threatened--by
the way--not by us, but by the Communist Party of China.
So it is my belief that it's long overdue for the United
States and the free world to respond. I hope we quickly pass
the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, which I hope will
be heard next week in committee so that we can provide this and
future administrations with updated tools to respond robustly
and flexibly to the Chinese Communist Party and its proxies who
are undermining Hong Kong's autonomy.
The U.S. Government and other democracies need to hold
Chinese and Hong Kong officials accountable for their failure
to uphold their commitments. The United States and other
nations have options precisely--precisely because Beijing
benefits from Hong Kong's special status, a special status
which has made Hong Kong an international financial center
built on the promises that China made to the world with regard
to Hong Kong which they now seek to break.
China's leaders must either respect Hong Kong's autonomy or
know that their escalating aggression will lead them to face
real consequences, not just from the United States, but from
the free world. And I issue one final warning in this regard. I
anticipate fully that they will continue their work to turn the
system of government in Hong Kong to more resemble the one that
exists in Macau, one that allows them to intervene in the legal
system as they wish.
So we're here today to examine what has happened, to look
forward to Hong Kong's future. There are many challenges in our
relationship with China, but Hong Kong must remain a priority.
Hong Kong is not a Chinese internal affair, and the world has a
responsibility to help the people of Hong Kong move toward a
future that protects their individual freedoms and provides for
civic well-being.
I look forward to hearing your views and today's
discussion. I thank you for your courage and for your
commitment.
Chairman McGovern. Thank you very much.
Let me just emphasize one thing Senator Rubio said. We
represent up here on this Commission a diverse political
spectrum, from the left to the right and everything in between.
We have lots of differences on lots of issues. We probably
couldn't even agree on what to have for lunch. But we have one
thing in common, and that is we believe your cause is noble and
just. And we are honored that you are all here today.
So we want to welcome this distinguished panel. I will
introduce each one of them, and then we will go to testimony.
I yield to Mr. Smith.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER SMITH,
A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW JERSEY
Representative Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much. What a panel of heroes, the best and
the bravest and brightest. Thank you for being here and bearing
witness to a very ugly truth as to what Hong Kong is doing.
It has been a long hot summer in Hong Kong, as we all know.
The inspiring and courageous protests there are a daily
reminder of the stark differences between free and
authoritarian societies.
The people of Hong Kong have shown the world that a free
people will not accept the boot of repression without protest.
The millions of Hong Kong protesters have also done the world a
great service. They have exposed Beijing's plan to erode
freedoms guaranteed to the people of Hong Kong by international
treaty. They have exposed Beijing's pernicious and repressive
behavior.
And have no doubt about it, the Chinese government is both
uniquely repressive and incredibly paranoid about maintaining
its grip on power. Today there are over a million Uyghurs
interned in Orwellian political education camps. Human rights
lawyers have disappeared, have been horribly tortured in
detention. Christians, Tibetans, labor activists, and
journalists as well face egregious abuse in the most intrusive
system of surveillance operating in the world today.
Why would anyone want their political fate determined by
Beijing? If given a choice, no one would.
As inspiring as the protests have been, they have also
raised serious concerns about the actions of the Hong Kong and
Chinese Communist governments. The violence and the use of
force perpetrated against the protesters by thugs and police--I
repeat myself--is extremely alarming.
Representative McGovern and I were the first Members of
Congress to call on the Trump Administration to suspend the
sale of tear gas, rubber bullets, pepper spray, and other
crowd-control equipment to the Hong Kong police. And I agree
with him, we need to quickly pass the PROTECT Act that we
introduced last week.
Also alarming are the repeated and irresponsible threats of
intervention made by Chinese officials, particularly given that
this year marks the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square
massacre. The Hong Kong and Chinese governments are alone
responsible for the grievances expressed by the protesters. And
they alone can peacefully end the protests by addressing the
demands for universal suffrage and investigation of police
threats.
Blaming the United States Government and blaming the U.S.
Congress for the protests is an act of cowardly propaganda and
not befitting a nation such as China which has aspirations of
global leadership. It is time for U.S. policy to respond to
Beijing's long-term ambitions in Hong Kong and pass the Hong
Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act.
Five years ago, Mr. Chairman, I introduced the Hong Kong
Human Rights and Democracy Act with my CECC Cochair, Senator
Brown. The bill allows for a more robust U.S. response to the
steady erosion of Hong Kong's autonomy and human rights. Over
the years Senator Rubio and I have upgraded the bill--and you
as well--to reflect the kidnapping of booksellers, the
disqualification of elected lawmakers, and the political
prosecution of Joshua Wong, Nathan Law, Benny Tai, and others.
However, every time--every single time we pushed for
passage, there was opposition from the diplomats, the so-called
experts, the committee chairs of both the House and the Senate,
and the American Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong. We were told
not to upset the status quo. We were told that upgrading U.S.
policy would undermine their efforts with Beijing and its hand-
selected political leaders in Hong Kong. We were told that our
bill would cost U.S. businesses.
It is the exact same advice that we have been hearing on
China since Tiananmen Square. And the big issue was then MFN.
China experts have failed the American people, and their
advice helped to gut parts of our own economy. Their advice
this time will fail the people of Hong Kong as well.
Specifically Mr. Chairman, as you know, the bill directs
the Secretary of State to certify to Congress annually as to
whether Hong Kong continues to deserve special treatment under
U.S. law that is different from mainland China in such matters
as trade, customs, sanctions enforcement, law enforcement
cooperation, and protection of human rights and the rule of
law.
It directs the State Department not--I say not--to deny
entry visas based on an applicant's arrest or detention for
participating in nonviolent protest activities in Hong Kong. It
requires an annual report from the Commerce Department on
whether the Hong Kong government adequately enforces U.S.
export controls and sanctions laws.
It requires the Secretary of State to submit a strategy to
Congress to protect U.S. citizens and businesses in Hong Kong
from the erosion of autonomy and the rule of law because of
actions taken by the Chinese Communist government.
It requires the President to identify and sanction persons
in Hong Kong or in mainland China responsible for the erosion
of Hong Kong's autonomy and serious abuses of human rights.
We have wide agreement for this legislation. It is time
that it passed.
I've heard it said that the business of Hong Kong is
business. I believe it's clear that the business of Hong Kong
is freedom. The people of Hong Kong are working to protect the
rights and rule of law that are the foundation of the city's
prosperity and unique vitality.
This Commission and so many of our colleagues in both the
House and the Senate stand united with the people of Hong Kong
and will not be silent in the face of threats to their
guaranteed liberties and way of life. The U.S. and the
international community cannot be silent or just make noise
with nothing that backs it up. The whole world has a stake in a
peaceful and just resolution of Hong Kong and the survival of
the ``one country, two systems'' model.
Hong Kong people--Gaa yau!
I yield back.
[Applause.]
Chairman McGovern. Thank you.
I am proud now to introduce our esteemed panel of expert
witnesses this morning. Three of our witnesses traveled all the
way from Hong Kong to provide their testimony to this Congress.
The panel includes Joshua Wong, a pro-democracy activist
and the Secretary General of Demosisto. At the age of 15 he
organized protests against ``patriotic education'' in Hong
Kong. Subsequently, he rose to prominence as a core leader of
the 2014 Umbrella Movement.
Mr. Wong was also one of Hong Kong's first three political
prisoners since 1997, sentenced in 2018 with Nathan Law and
Alex Chow for leadership roles in the Umbrella Movement. Most
recently he was arrested in August 2019 for his role in a
peaceful protest outside police headquarters during the anti-
extradition bill movement.
Denise Ho, a pro-democracy and LGBTQ rights activist, and
an award-winning Hong Kong-based singer, producer, and actress.
Ms. Ho is a prominent supporter of the anti-extradition bill
protests in Hong Kong and a leading figure in Hong Kong's pro-
democracy movement.
She was arrested during the 2014 Umbrella Movement for
taking part in nonviolent protests. The Chinese government has
banned her from performing in China. In July 2019, Ms. Ho
addressed the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva on Hong Kong,
during which she was repeatedly interrupted by the Chinese
delegation.
Sunny Cheung, a spokesperson for the Hong Kong Higher
Education International Affairs Delegation (HKIAD), and an
activist from the Student Union of the University of Hong Kong.
Established in July of 2019, HKIAD includes all student
unions of universities in Hong Kong, with the primary mission
of raising global awareness and support for Hong Kong's anti-
extradition bill protesters and the pro-democracy movement.
Mr. Cheung has participated in and organized exchange
events and conferences in Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, the
United States, and at the United Nations, and he recently gave
a speech in the U.K. House of Commons in support of Hong Kong.
Sharon Hom, the Executive Director of Human Rights in
China, where she leads its international advocacy and strategic
policy engagement with NGOs, governments, and multi-stakeholder
initiatives.
HRIC has covered human rights and democracy development in
Hong Kong extensively, including the 2014 Umbrella Movement.
Ms. Hom has presented in numerous hearings on a wide range of
human rights issues before key European, U.S., and
international policymakers.
She is a professor of law emerita at the City University of
New York School of Law and has taught law for 18 years,
including training judges, lawyers, and law teachers at eight
law schools in China.
Daniel Garrett, a Ph.D., an author, photographer, and
political scientist focusing on Chinese security politics and
the securitization of Hong Kong. Since 2011, he has documented
over 600 demonstrations, marches, and rallies in Hong Kong,
including most recently the anti-extradition bill
demonstrations.
Dr. Garrett is a doctoral graduate of City University of
Hong Kong with approximately 20 years of engagement with Hong
Kong, and completed his dissertation on ``one country, two
systems'' under China's national security framework.
Dr. Garrett was a career national security professional,
providing strategic counterintelligence and threat analysis,
and served at the Defense Intelligence Agency, National
Security Agency, and in the United States Air Force.
I want to thank you all for being here. We are honored by
your presence. We will begin with you, Mr. Wong.
STATEMENT OF JOSHUA WONG, SECRETARY-GENERAL OF DEMOSISTO, PRO-
DEMOCRACY ACTIVIST, AND UMBRELLA MOVEMENT LEADER
Mr. Wong. Good morning, Chairman McGovern, Cochairman
Rubio, and members of this Commission. It's an honor to be
invited back to Capitol Hill to speak about developments in
Hong Kong.
You may recall that I last traveled to Washington more than
two years ago and testified before this Commission in this same
building on May 1st of 2017. What I said back then was that
Hong Kong's ``one country, two systems'' was becoming ``one
country, one-and-a-half systems.'' I don't think there is any
doubt among observers who have followed recent events that
today we are approaching dangerously close to ``one country,
one system.'' The present state of affairs reflects Beijing's
inability to understand, let alone govern, a free society.
The ongoing demonstration began on June 9th when one
million Hong Kongers took to the streets in protest of proposed
legislation that would have allowed criminal suspects to be
extradited from Hong Kong to China where there are no
guarantees of the rule of law. Still, before the night had
ended, Chief Executive Carrie Lam announced the bill's reading
would resume in three days. Hong Kongers were preparing for the
last fight on June 12th.
And then the unthinkable happened. Knowing that Beijing
controlled enough votes in the Legislative Council, protesters
surrounded the complex earlier in the morning, successfully
preventing lawmakers from convening. I was then serving my
first jail sentence.
For a moment I wondered why the news channel was replaying
footage of the Umbrella Movement. It was not long before I
realized Hong Kongers were back with even stronger
determination.
Lam suspended the bill on June 15th but fell short of fully
withdrawing it. A historic two million people demonstrated the
following day, equivalent to one in four out of our entire
population. I'm not aware of anything comparable to this level
of discontent against a government in modern history.
I was released exactly three months ago on June 17th and
have since joined fellow Hong Kongers to protest in the most
creative ways possible. In addition to the bill withdrawal, we
demand that Lam retract the label on us as rioters, drop all
political charges, and conduct an independent investigation
into police brutality.
Some of us crowdfunded for newspaper advertisements ahead
of the G20 Summit in late June, calling for the world not to
neglect Hong Kong. Others entered the chamber of the
Legislative Council Complex on July 1, the same day another
half million Hong Kongers protested peacefully.
The crowd continued to show up in large numbers in the past
15 weekends with more rallies taking place almost daily across
the territories. But the government would not listen. Instead
of defusing the political crisis, it dramatically empowered the
riot police.
The movement reached a turning point on July 21st. That
night, pro-Beijing thugs with suspected ties to organized crime
gathered in the Yuen Long train station and indiscriminately
attacked not just protesters returning home and reporters on
the scene, but even passersby. The police refused to show up
despite repeated emergency calls, plunging Hong Kong into a
police state with more violence.
On August 5th alone, the day Hong Kongers participated in a
general strike, riot police shot 800 canisters of tear gas to
disperse the peaceful masses. Compare that to only 87 fired in
the entire Umbrella Movement five years ago. The police's
excessive force today is clear. Their excessive use of pepper
spray, pepper balls, rubber bullets, beanbag rounds, and water
cannons--almost all of which are imported from Western
democracies--is no less troubling.
In light of this, I applaud Chairman McGovern and
Congressman Smith for introducing the PROTECT Hong Kong Act
last week. American companies must not profit from the violent
crackdown on freedom-loving Hong Kongers.
Cochairman Rubio is also right for recently writing that
Hong Kong's special status under American law depends on the
city being treated as a separate customs area. Beijing should
not have it both ways, reaping all the economic benefit of Hong
Kong's standing in the world while eroding our freedom. This is
the most important reason why the Hong Kong Human Rights and
Democracy Act enjoys the broad support of Hong Kong civil
society.
Lam finally withdrew the bill earlier this month. But just
as protesters had long ago stopped calling for her resignation,
so this decision was almost meaningless by then. The movement
is far from over, because it has moved beyond one bill or one
person.
Our most important demand is genuine structural change in
Hong Kong, which means free elections. Our government's lack of
representation lies at the heart of the matter.
As I speak, Hong Kong is standing at a critical juncture.
The stakes have never been higher. We are confronted by the
huge Chinese military buildup just across the border in
Shenzhen.
President Xi Jinping is unlikely to take hardline action
before the upcoming National Day in October. But no one can be
sure what's next. Sending in the tanks remains irrational, but
not impossible. With China's interference in Taiwan, Tibet, and
especially Xinjiang, it serves as a reminder that Beijing is
prepared to go far in pursuit of its grand imperial project.
I was once the face of Hong Kong's youth activism. In this
leaderless movement my sacrifice is minimal compared to those
among us who have been laid off for protesting, who have been
injured but too afraid of even going to a hospital, or who have
been forced to take their own life. Two have each lost an eye.
The youngest of the 1,500 arrested so far is a 12-year-old
schoolboy.
I don't know them personally, yet their pain is my pain. We
belong to the same community, struggling for our rights of
self-determination so we can build one brighter and common
future.
A child born today will not even have celebrated his or her
28th birthday by 2047, when the 50-year unchanged policy is set
to expire. That deadline is closer to us than it appears. There
is no return for us.
Decades from now when historians look back, I'm sure that
2019 will turn out to have been a watershed. I hope historians
will celebrate the United States Congress for having stood on
the side of Hong Kongers, the side of human rights and
democracy.
God bless Hong Kong. Thank you.
[Applause.]
Chairman McGovern. Ms. Ho, welcome.
STATEMENT OF DENISE HO, PRO-DEMOCRACY ACTIVIST AND AWARD-
WINNING CANTOPOP SINGER AND ACTRESS
Ms. Ho. Thank you, Chairman McGovern, Cochairman Rubio, and
the members of this Commission for holding this hearing and for
having us here at this very critical moment for Hong Kong.
For more than 100 days now, young people in Hong Kong have
been at the forefront of our resistance. This is a leaderless
movement with widespread participation from people of all walks
of life.
It is a fight for democracy, a fight for human rights, and
most of all a fight for universal values. What started in June
as a one-million-people march has morphed into a struggle for
fundamental political reform in Hong Kong.
Chief Executive Carrie Lam's misjudgments and arrogance
worsened the situation, resulting in a total clampdown by the
Beijing government over Hong Kong's affairs.
To date, more than 1,500 Hong Kongers, the youngest at the
age of 12 years old, have been unreasonably arrested. Sadly, it
has become a daily occurrence to see youngsters being pinned to
the ground with head concussions, if not being knocked
unconscious. Meanwhile, riot police and plainclothes officers
have early on deliberately hidden their I.D. numbers and
warrant cards, making it impossible for us to even certify
their legitimacy, let alone hold them accountable.
On August 21st, police from the special tactical unit
charged into Prince Edward MTR station, beating up passengers
randomly. They then shut down the station for 24 hours,
refusing medical care for those who were injured, raising the
suspicion of possible deaths in the station.
Separately, now, they will be charging into secondary
schoolyards, shopping malls, and buses where young people
merely dressed in black can be searched or even arrested
without justification. In other words, merely being young is a
crime in the police state of Hong Kong.
The protests began with an extradition bill, but at the
core it has always been about these fundamental conflicts
between two very different sets of values. On one hand, the
China model which has no respect for human rights and the rule
of law, and our hybrid city that has enjoyed these very
freedoms for most of its existence, with a deep attachment to
these universal values that the United States and other western
societies treasure.
Hong Kong represents something unique in the world. We have
long held dear our rule of law, transparent institutions, and
freedom of expression in a part of the world where these are
more often threatened than upheld. However, this system is now
under great threat. Companies like Hong Kong's major airline
Cathay Pacific have succumbed to political pressure, firing
dozens of employees due to their political stance. The business
community is coerced into making political decisions.
As a singer and activist from Hong Kong, I have experienced
this oppression first hand. Ever since the Umbrella Movement in
2014, I have been blacklisted by the Communist government. My
songs and my name are censored on Chinese internet. Pressured
by the Chinese government, sponsors have pulled out. Even
international brands have kept their distance.
For the past five years and even more so recently, China
tried to smear and silence me with their propaganda machine,
spreading false claims. Right now, I am facing threats from
pro-Beijing supporters and could face arrest and prosecution at
any time. Not only have I faced difficulties in both China and
Hong Kong, but the self-censorship has now spread toward global
institutions and cities.
Recently the National Gallery of Victoria in Melbourne,
Australia denied a venue to an event of Chinese artist Badiucao
and me due to security concerns. Celebrities from Hong Kong,
Taiwan, and China are all pressured into voicing their
unanimous support for the Beijing government and could be
condemned for keeping their silence.
Hong Kongers are now living in constant fear and have
unfortunately lost most of our freedoms. For a city that has
been famously known as politically indifferent, the younger
generations have taken up the road to safeguard our home,
standing up courageously to the corrupt system in spite of
increased suppression.
To the rest of the world, the United States is often a
symbol of freedom and democracy. The freedom Americans enjoy is
something that the people of Hong Kong have long hoped for.
Even though our languages and cultures differ, what we have in
common is the pursuit of justice, freedom, and democracy.
Through the challenges of Hong Kong, the West is also
waking up to China's insinuating power on a global scale. Hong
Kong is connected to the world in multiple ways, but China is
trying to isolate it to exert control. If Hong Kong falls, it
would easily become the springboard for the totalitarian regime
of China to push its rules and priorities overseas, utilizing
its economic power to conform others to their Communist values
just as they have done with Hong Kong in the past 22 years.
The U.S. and its allies have everything to fear if they
wish to maintain a world that is free, open, and civil. I
therefore urge the U.S. Congress to stand by Hong Kong and most
of all to pass the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act.
This is not a plea for so-called foreign interference. This is
a plea for democracy. This is a plea for the freedom to choose.
And lastly, I would like to quote Eleanor Roosevelt, your
most beloved first lady. ``You gain strength, courage and
confidence by every experience in which you really stop to look
fear in the face. You are able to say to yourself, `I lived
through this horror. I can take the next thing that comes
along.' ''
This is a global fight for the universal values that we all
cherish. And Hong Kong is on the very front lines of this
fight. We were once fearful of what might have come with our
silence. And for that, we have now become fearless.
Thank you.
[Applause.]
Chairman McGovern. Thank you. Thank you.
Mr. Cheung, welcome.
STATEMENT OF SUNNY CHEUNG, SPOKESPERSON FOR THE HONG KONG
HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS DELEGATION (HKIAD) AND
STUDENT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG
Mr. Cheung. Chairman McGovern, Cochairman Rubio, and
members of the Commission, thank you for your invitation to
this hearing.
Last year, Chinese President Xi Jinping said in a closed-
door meeting that China would never embrace the judicial
independence of the West. This is why people in Hong Kong are
trying hard to reject the extradition bill, because we do not
believe in a country who looks down on human rights,
disqualifies our legislators, and kidnaps our booksellers. We
want to protect our legal system as the last barrier against
Beijing's political interference.
Apart from asking for the withdrawal of the bill, Hong Kong
people also demand an investigation into police brutality to
save Hong Kong from turning into a police state. More
importantly, we demand universal suffrage.
We believe that without any structural political reform and
without a government chosen by the people, there is no
possibility for Hong Kong to restore prosperity. We cannot have
a society compromised in the interest of individuals. The voice
of the people should always be heard. Unfortunately, our
government ignores our demands by saying that we have no stake
in the society.
Our student union members are detained, followed, beaten,
and threatened. During the detainment, one of our student union
members was told by the police that it was reasonable for them
to rape some female protesters when they frequently work
overtime.
Besides, the authorities try to stop us from having
peaceful class strikes when more than 50,000 students are
participating in it. People who side with Beijing are now
advocating the installation of surveillance cameras inside
classrooms to monitor teachers and students who dare to support
class strikes and support the movement.
This apparently violates our academic freedom and freedom
of speech. This is the ``white terror'' created by the Beijing
government which should alert all people here.
Nowadays, students and Hong Kong people are even ready to
die for Hong Kong. And some already have. They believe that the
only limit to their freedom is their death. This is the
ultimate sacrifice for the motherland, and we must not forget
them.
Many students face strong objections from their families.
Some of them are even forced to leave home. But they still head
to the front lines carrying a letter with their last will. They
are determined. They understand that the price of freedom is
high. It always has been. But it is a price they are willing to
pay, and it is a path of liberation they are willing to choose.
We do not fight for freedom out of passion. Passion will
burn out. We fight for freedom from a sense of duty and
dignity. China is rising. China is using its nationalism and
invasive economic dominance to colonize small countries and put
intense pressure on people and companies like Cathay Pacific
who do not conform to them. Teachers, students, civil servants,
and businessmen are all facing political pressure in Hong Kong.
This new form of imperialism in China poses a severe threat
to Hong Kong. This is a crisis of values and systems. We need
to contain the Communist Party of China.
Offering help to Hong Kong is the primary move to contain
China. ``One country, two systems'' will expire in 2047. The
U.S. Government should help Hong Kong people have the right to
decide our future. Therefore, we urge the U.S. Congress to pass
the Human Rights and Democracy Act to expand the current
sanction list to all individuals who infringe on our human
rights.
Moreover, if genuine universal suffrage cannot be achieved
immediately, our autonomy and rule of law will continue to
erode. The situation of China manipulating Hong Kong as a back
door for trading with Iran and North Korea will also continue.
If this occurs, the U.S. Government should not acknowledge
the special status of Hong Kong. The U.S. must send a strong
signal that this special status will be canceled if Hong Kong
loses its autonomy, in order to put pressure on China.
Otherwise, China will keep taking advantage of Hong Kong as an
international society but hollow out our liberal values. With
such an assertive policy, it demonstrates that America will no
longer tolerate totalitarianism.
Hong Kong people will take every step with the last inch of
our efforts to fight for democracy and freedom. Thomas
Jefferson once said he would be ``forever against any form of
tyranny.'' And I believe it is time for Americans to stand with
Hong Kong.
Gwong fuk heung gong, si dai gaap ming! [Liberate Hong
Kong, revolution of our time!]
Thank you.
[Applause.]
Chairman McGovern. Thank you.
Ms. Hom, welcome.
STATEMENT OF SHARON HOM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN
CHINA AND PROFESSOR OF LAW EMERITA AT CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW
YORK SCHOOL OF LAW
Ms. Hom. Thank you.
Chairman McGovern, Cochair Rubio, and members of the
Commission, thank you for this opportunity. It's an honor for
me to stand in solidarity with the frontline activists.
I want to thank the Commission members for their critical
support for the Hong Kong people and your leadership on the
Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act and the PROTECT Hong
Kong Act.
Over the past three months, the whole world has witnessed
the historic David and Goliath standoff. And against all odds,
the Hong Kong people are standing up to the powerful
authoritarian regime in Beijing. In this historic battle they
are not only fighting for the democratic future of 7.4 million
Hong Kong people, but they're holding the regional and global
frontline on preserving human dignity and rights for all
people.
As Congressman McGovern has already mentioned, the past
summer of discontent is in fact part of years of ongoing
resistance by the Hong Kong people against Beijing's
encroachment on Hong Kong's autonomy, rights, and freedom. The
mass demonstrations in the past have included resistance
against security legislation, official brainwashing initiatives
and the gutting of the promised genuine universal suffrage.
After the clearance of the Occupy Central sites, democracy
activists left a promise inscribed on the concrete sidewalks--
``We will return.'' They have kept that promise.
Instead of Beijing's hope for movement fatigue, the
protests supported by unflagging solidarity and broad, diverse
participation of Hong Kong society are moving into the 15th
week, pressing for now five nonnegotiable demands. The out-of-
control lawless actions of the Hong Kong police have provided
mobilization fuel for Hong Kong people to ``add oil.''
As Chairman Mao said, ``Wherever there is suppression,
there will be resistance.'' And at the beginning of the
Cultural Revolution he also said, ``Anyone who crushes the
student movement will not have a good ending.''
I want to talk about the rule of law just briefly because
there are tensions that were baked into the ``one country, two
systems'' framework, making one country, one system or one-and-
a-half systems perhaps an inevitable outcome.
Taiwan's President Tsai Ing-wen's takeaway from the current
political crisis hits the nail on the head. Not only is ``one
country, two systems'' not a viable model for Taiwan, but the
Hong Kong example proves that dictatorship and democracy cannot
coexist.
An independent functioning rule of law is essential, yet
the Chinese state constitution and numerous high-level policy
pronouncements legitimize the subordination of law to the
leadership of the Party. The reintroduction of the Article 23
legislation that's in the works in Hong Kong will inevitably
carry imprints of the Party's concepts of national security.
Second, the demand for complete loyalty to the Party guts
the independence of key pillars of the rule of law, the legal
profession, and the media. But Hong Kong is not the mainland--
yet. Despite efforts like the proposed Hong Kong national
anthem law and proposed loyalty requirements, loyalty, pride,
and love cannot be legislated. So it's not surprising that Hong
Kong people, foreign business, and the international community
have been alarmed.
The outrageous and painful excessive violence and abuse of
law by the police have already been extensively described. I
will move to, then, talking about what's at stake in terms of
universal values.
China's aggressive activism at the U.N. is undermining
international standards, weakening existing human rights
mechanisms, and restricting the participation of independent
civil society. This cuts off the Hong Kong people as well as
human rights defenders on the mainland, and the Tibetan and
Uyghur communities from the key international platforms that
are available to press for accountability.
With this--instead of the West's hoped-for convergence,
China is not only not playing by the rules, it is vocally and
persistently asserting a set of relativist criteria that it
alone can apply and pushing for Chinese models of human rights,
democracy, and development; that is, no human rights, no
development, and no democracy. This rhetoric helps to
intimidate, silence, and deflect from the accountability of the
state.
I want to point quickly to its role in blocking independent
voices. China sits on the NGO Committee of the ECOSOC of the
U.N. and, as a result, Chinese GONGOs do not face any
objections such as the interruptions of Denise Ho's recent
intervention at the Human Rights Council.
The intervention last week by Pansy Ho, the representative
of the Hong Kong Federation of Women, is illustrative. She not
only defended the SAR government's handling of the protest, but
she accused the Hong Kong protesters of ``child exploitation''
and more. Ho, Cochairman and Director of a Macau casino
operation, is also a Standing Committee member of the Beijing
Municipal Committee of the Chinese People's Consultative
Conference.
Because I am out of time, I want to take time to really
jump ahead to the problem of a--in addition to the
disinformation campaign, including the egregious use by China
Daily on 9/11 of a photo depicting the destruction of the World
Trade Towers to warn of terrorist attacks by Hong Kong
protesters. Beijing is advancing a narrative of violence to
frame the Hong Kong protest that is echoed uncritically by the
international community.
Within this framework, the Hong Kong police, protected in
full tactical gear, armed with rubber bullets, guns, tear gas,
pepper spray, and batons, wielding the coercive power of the
state, are presented as one ``side'' of an escalating violence,
clashes with civilian protesters. Hence, we hear calls for
``both sides'' to de-escalate. But this deflects attention away
from police accountability for its excessive use of force and
its complicity with nonstate violence.
Moreover, the narrow violence framing of the situation on
the ground is intentionally erasing or marginalizing the
proliferation of diverse, creative, and peaceful protests by
the Hong Kong people, including by students in boycotts and by
elderly citizens, silver-hair volunteers protecting the
children's actions.
Hong Kong people singing in the malls, in the metro
stations, in neighborhood gatherings, shouting--the 10:00 p.m.
shouts of slogans echoing throughout all the neighborhoods in
Hong Kong--and forming human chains, creating Lennon walls.
And last Friday was mid-autumn festival. And a small
family-owned bakery in Sai Wan made mooncakes with protest
slogans. And in typical humorous Hong Kong fashion, Hong
Kongers are creating art. This is what is happening. Hong Kong
people are practicing democracy and exercising their freedoms
for as long as possible. Hong Kongers are making the road by
walking it. That is the real revolution already underway on the
ground.
Thank you again, and I look forward to your questions.
Chairman McGovern. Well, thank you very much.
[Applause.]
Chairman McGovern. Dr. Garrett, thank you for coming, and
we welcome your testimony.
STATEMENT OF DANIEL GARRETT, Ph.D., POLITICAL SCIENTIST AND
AUTHOR OF ``COUNTER-HEGEMONIC RESISTANCE IN CHINA'S HONG KONG:
VISUALIZING PROTEST IN THE CITY'' (2014)
Mr. Garrett. Thank you.
Good morning, Chairmen McGovern and Rubio, distinguished
members of the Commission. It is an honor and a privilege to
talk with you regarding the Chinese Communist Party's erosion
of ``one country, two systems'' in Hong Kong under the pretext
of national security and its nexus to the extradition bill
crisis.
I will begin with five key observations backgrounding the
current China-Hong Kong conflict and the ``one country, two
systems'' crisis.
First, today's ``one country, two systems'' is not the same
as Deng Xiaoping's notion that proffered peaceful coexistence
between the Communist and Hong Kong systems. Instead, it has
been replaced by Xi Jinping's new era ``one country, two
systems'' model embracing political struggle and enemy-friend
binary and foregrounding Chinese national security as the
paramount lens for governing the Special Administrative Region
and implementing ``one country, two systems.'' Rather than a
confidence-building mechanism ensuring peaceful coexistence,
``one country, two systems'' under Xi Jinping is now intended
to advance and safeguard China's sovereignty, security, and
development interests.
Second, this new era ``one country, two systems'' model is
informed by Xi Jinping's broader national security concepts
known as the ``three major dangers'' and ``national security
with Chinese characteristics.'' The former situates Communist
China at imminent risk of being invaded, toppled and separated,
and its development, reform, and stability sabotaged, thereby
leading to the derailing of China's rise, socialist
modernization, and the ``one country, two systems'' policy. The
latter dramatically broadens the notion of Chinese national
security and radically expands the scope of Chinese
authorities' prerogatives in administering ``one country, two
systems.''
Consequently, it significantly erodes the Special
Administrative Region's high degree of autonomy, diminishes
Hong Kongers' freedoms, and widens the threat to U.S. citizens
and national interests in Hong Kong.
Third, under Xi Jinping's new security paradigms and new
era ``one country, two systems'' model, dissident Hong Kongers
have been systematically enemified and securitized as mortal
threats to the Party-state and banned or removed from positions
of political power. Elections have been partially nullified,
Hong Kongers disenfranchised and terrorized with real and
rhetorical political violence. The promise of Hong Kong people
ruling Hong Kong has been effectively replaced with a
tyrannical ``rule of patriots.''
Official declarations and Party-state media propagating
Hong Konger enemy and Hong Kong threat security discourses have
become ubiquitous, and Cultural Revolution-like mass line and
United Front denunciation campaigns targeting democrats,
localists and westernized Hong Kongers have swept the city
repeatedly over the last seven years since Xi Jinping came to
power.
And fourth, since at least 2012, Hong Kong and ``one
country, two systems'' have been perceived by Beijing as
Communist China's weakest links in its resurgent totalitarian
national security state. For Chinese authorities, both are at
the forefront of ideological confrontation with the United
States and the West, ``a new Cold War'' in their terms.
By the end of 2014 and the Umbrella Movement, the struggle
to rule Hong Kong was said to have matched the intensity
surrounding the 1997 handover and that China now had to rethink
how to rule the enclave.
An influential adviser to senior Chinese authorities said
that Hong Kong faced a society-wide ``long-term struggle'' to
eradicate the Party-state's enemies in the city, a de facto
cultural revolution that would involve at a minimum rectifying
and sinicizing the judiciary, legislature, media, secondary
schools, and universities.
Chinese and Special Administrative Regions' furtive efforts
to impose the Communists' legal, political, and social norms on
Hong Kong via the extradition law and unprecedented violent
suppression of protests have provoked a most severe crisis of
``one country, two systems'' as Hong Kongers fight for their
endangered freedom, identity, and way of life.
This is not an anomaly. It is the sixth Chinese governance
crisis involving ``one country, two systems'' since 2003 and
the fifth since Xi Jinping took control of Hong Kong affairs.
Each has an underlying Chinese national security nexus
seeking to broaden Beijing's powers, its so-called
comprehensive jurisdiction in Hong Kong, and to roll back Hong
Kongers' high degree of autonomy, liberal freedoms and limited
democracy by forcibly transforming Hong Kong into a Chinese
Communist city while maintaining a veneer of ``no changes.''
My next few observations will quickly touch upon the
extradition law nexus to national security. Senior Chinese
officials have described the extradition battle right now as a
``battle of life and death'' and a ``battle to defend Hong
Kong,'' a decisive war defending ``one country, two systems''
or jeopardizing it.
Since Xi Jinping came to power, national security is now a
mandatory obligation for people in the Hong Kong SAR. This was
never written into the original Basic Law. This has been done
post facto since 2012.
Early in the extradition law saga, senior Chinese leaders
have made extraordinary endorsements of the extradition law,
expressing their full support. This included two Politburo
Standing Committee members, Han Zheng and Wang Yang, the head
of the State Council's Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office,
Zhang Xiaoming, and the chief of the Hong Kong SAR Liaison
Office, Wang Zhimin.
There are also indications that President Xi Jinping, as a
member of the Central Coordination Group for Hong Kong and
Macao Affairs, has weighed in. An influential United Front
commentator in state media has also observed that if it were
not for the full support of the central government, the
legislation would have been aborted.
Chief Executive Carrie Lam recently lamented in a leaked
speech that since the issue had been elevated to one of
national security and sovereignty, it had stripped her of any
solutions or room for political maneuver.
Another source explained that because the ELAB involved the
mainland Special Administrative Region relationship with the
central government and the implementation of the Basic Law, it
was not a matter entirely within the autonomy of the Special
Administrative Region government.
This touches upon Hong Kongers' five demands as well as
U.S. national security, and U.S. policy towards Hong Kong.
Beijing's imposition of Communist legal and political and
social national security norms on Hong Kong--constitute a
violation of Article 5 of the Basic Law prohibiting the
introduction of a socialist system in the territory.
Moreover, the Party's application of its ``national
security with Chinese characteristics'' mandate and loyalty
expectations to the Special Administrative Region and its civil
servants, effectively dissolves any difference between the
Communist and Hong Kong systems, thereby posing a significant
threat to U.S. interests related to the protection of sensitive
technologies and adherence to export controls.
My last two comments before I submit the rest of my
testimony--the Hong Kong police force has been militarized and
nationalized by the Chinese Communist Party, effectively
becoming its ``little gun'' in the Special Administrative
Region. Since the beginning of 2019, mainland police have been
tasked by President Xi with ``preventing and countering color
revolutions.''
China's Public Security Minister subsequently ordered
police to ``firmly fight to protect China's political
security,'' and defend its national security and the leadership
of the Communist Party.
Earlier, Hong Kong police had received similar national
security tasking from Vice Premier Han Zheng who in August 2018
charged them to ``firmly and effectively'' safeguard China's
national security and rule of law by ``accurately and
comprehensively'' implementing ``one country, two systems.''
Also, according to a vice chairman of the State Council's
Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macao Studies, the Hong
Kong police were now ``on the forefront when it came to curbing
Hong Kong independence,'' which meant their duty was not just
to maintain public order, but to defend national security, too.
Chief Executive Carrie Lam, in a leaked speech, also
iterated that the Hong Kong police were the only solution that
they currently possess in dealing with the extradition process.
In no small way, the Hong Kong police have become the Special
Administrative Region's people's armed police.
One last comment--Chinese authorities have dedicated
significant academic, legal, political, propaganda, and United
Front resources to systematically manipulating and recasting
Deng Xiaoping-era content and understandings of the Basic Law
in ``one country, two systems'' to accommodate Xi Jinping's
totalitarian national security mandates, logics and outlook.
The Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macao Studies, a
shadowy political warfare-like think tank connected to the
State Council's Hong Kong and Macao Affairs office, is one of
these new subversive vehicles. Concomitantly, a network of
Party-state constitutional and Basic Law experts and scholars,
some attached to the National People's Congress Standing
Committee's Hong Kong SAR Basic Law Committee have similarly
contributed significantly to the erosion of ``one country, two
systems'' policy, mobilized political bans, and informed the
Central Authority's understanding of the actual situation in
the region.
All of these United Fronters are key players in the erosion
of Hong Kong's freedom and democracy and enable state tyranny.
Thank you.
Chairman McGovern. Thank you very much.
[Applause.]
I will save my questions until the end. I am going to yield
now to the Cochair, Senator Rubio.
Cochairman Rubio. Thank you.
And I will just ask one question because I know Members
have places to go and I want them to get in on this.
The key issue before us is autonomy. If you go back to
2014, they took away universal suffrage for the election of the
chief executive. In 2016 and 2017, they disqualified six
democratic lawmakers from the council seats using a very
controversial interpretation of the Hong Kong constitution. And
then in 2019, this effort at the extradition bill.
So my question to all the panelists is, How would you
describe the state of Hong Kong autonomy today?
Mr. Wong. During the last congressional hearing, I was
strongly aware of how ``one country, two systems'' had eroded
to be ``one country, one-and-a-half systems.'' But the recent
political crisis--how the Hong Kong and Beijing governments
have turned such a global city into a police state with more
violence and even ``white terror'' I would describe now as the
collapse of ``one country, two systems.'' We are facing death
under the current constitutional framework.
And I think now is also the time and the reason we should
seek bipartisan support. Supporting Hong Kong's democratization
should not be a matter of left or right. It should be a matter
of right or wrong.
Ms. Ho. In a more cultural and social context, there is
immense fear among the people to speak their minds, which is a
result of how the businesses and the government institutions
have put pressure onto their employees or the people to keep
their mouths shut, basically. This has a huge impact on the
economy because without this freedom of speech, it's very
difficult for the economy and also the society to thrive
because in a sense, we are already in somewhat of a ``China
city'' situation where people would fear for their safety if
they spoke out about their political stance.
Just for an example, there has been an unofficial Hong Kong
anthem recently that has been written by an anonymous
songwriter. And they have opted to keep their anonymity because
if they had shown their face, then most likely they would have
been arrested or prosecuted on claims of national threats--
national security threats. So that's basically the sentiment of
the Hong Kong people.
Mr. Cheung. Last year the USCC (U.S.-China Economic and
Security Review Commission) published a report with concerns
that Hong Kong is becoming more like any other Chinese city,
and that means that our autonomy is already gone, and even the
USCC has issued a report claiming that the autonomy of Hong
Kong is already in danger.
In the U.K. when I met some politicians, I would tell them
that the Chinese government already abridged the Sino-British
Joint Declaration. And that is why I would say the autonomy of
Hong Kong is already dead, and that's why we urge the U.S.
Government and other free-world countries to try to help Hong
Kong by, for instance, passing the Human Rights and Democracy
Act.
And you can pass the Global Magnitsky Act in other
countries, urge your allies to pass them to let other free-
world countries stand with Hong Kong.
Ms. Hom. The economy question, Senator Rubio, is extremely
important because post-1989, that was a decision made by the
Communist Party: We're going to go forth, back into market and
economic reforms, but absolutely no political reforms.
This has been echoed by the chief executive. When she
endlessly has been having these kinds of ridiculous press
conferences where she says nothing, one thing she does say is:
We need to restore the economy; we need to restore economic
order--completely ignoring the structural/political issues that
are causing a lot of the fundamental unrest.
So the other point I wanted to add is that the Hong Kong
economy was not delivering the goods to most of the Hong Kong
people. The tycoons, and probably the triads, were doing quite
well, but not the majority of Hong Kong people. Hence, we have
the housing problem, the education problem, the problem of the
elderly with inadequate care, and so forth, and health care.
So the economy was not delivering, and I think what needs
to happen--yes, there should be a renewal of the economy. But
it's going to be an economy that works for all the people.
If I could pick up quickly on Sunny's reference to
autonomy. Autonomy, what it means for the Communist Party is--
we only need to look at the so-called autonomous regions in
Tibet and Xinjiang.
What autonomy means is no culture, no language, no history,
no right to believe or practice your faith under the
sinicization of religion, which is an oxymoron. And their
understanding of autonomy even extends past this life. As you
know, the Party is trying to now control reincarnation.
So they are also trying to impose a notion of Chineseness.
What kind of Chineseness? Well, Xi Jinping's notion of
Chineseness under the Chinese dream and what is Chinese. But
Hong Kongers are quite complex as a history, and language, and
culture. And I think Hong Kongers are negotiating what it means
to be a Hong Konger, whether it includes being a Chinese. Does
it mean that?
And I think that's what it means to be free, the right to
decide and determine in this complex way, what does it mean to
be who we are? And that is absolutely antithetical to the DNA
of the Communist Party and its notion of autonomy because it
does not exist.
Mr. Garrett. Thank you.
The ``rule of patriots'' in Hong Kong basically means that
there is no substantive high degree of autonomy. Basically,
under Xi Jinping, a democratic centralism is practiced. They
may solicit input from the Hong Kong government, but once
Beijing makes a decision, the SAR government has to implement
it.
Building on Dr. Hom's comments here, national identity is
now a national security issue for the Communist Party and Hong
Kong. They believe that one of the major problems--this goes
back to 2007 when Hu Jintao told the Hong Kong government on
the tenth anniversary that the SAR government had to create a
new generation of Hong Kongers who loved ``one country, two
systems,'' who loved China, that the recovery of Hong Kong
would not be complete until Hong Kongers identified with China,
with Communist China.
This also touches on Xi Jinping's Chinese Communist
identity politics, which is attempting to rehabilitate the
spoiled image of the Communist Party and the spoiled image of
being a Communist. This is why we start seeing laws protecting
the national anthem, martyrs and so forth.
So in Hong Kong, which has always been historically anti-
Communist to a large degree, there is this effort related to
the extradition campaign to eradicate so-called anti-Communist
sentiment, and anti-Communist forces.
With regard to autonomy, because the Belt and Road
Initiative and the Greater Bay Area Initiative are key to
China's development program right now, and because the central
government believes that the major impediment to Hong Kong
signing on and strongly supporting these programs has been the
two systems, has been its democracy, has been its freedoms, it
is now looking to restrict those in order to force the SAR
government to support these programs.
So, once again in closing, I would say there is no
substantive autonomy. Thank you.
Chairman McGovern. Thank you.
Mr. Suozzi.
Representative Suozzi. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and
Cochairman Rubio, for holding this hearing. We appreciate you
bringing this together. Thank you, Representative Smith--
Ranking Member Smith--for the work that you've done on this
issue for so many years.
Thank you to the witnesses. We are so grateful to all of
you for the information you've given us here today and for
shining a light on this. I know we sit here in this chamber.
It's very calm. It's very safe. It's very sterile, and you're
bringing to life what's going on in real people's lives right
now, when you talk about a 12-year-old being arrested. We hear
the idea that someone gets pepper spray sprayed into their
wound, when we hear about people's heads being smashed into the
concrete and getting concussions. And when we hear about the
rubber bullets and the tear gas and everything else. And people
living in fear on a regular basis for standing up, for speaking
their minds.
Here in the United States of America, we have believed
since Nixon went to China that the more that China was exposed
to our way of life in the United States and to the West, that
they would become more like us. We always thought they'd
become--if they saw capitalism, if they saw democracy, sooner
or later, they'd become more and more like us. And we now know
that that is not at all the case.
Whether the hearings that we have held about the Uyghurs,
or the hearings about Tibet, or now about Hong Kong, we know
that they are pulling--well, you know we talk about Hong Kong
as being ``one country, two systems.'' It's really one world
with two models, and they are meeting each other in Hong Kong
right now.
And the question is, which model is going to win? Is it
going to be the model that we promote here in the United States
with the rule of law and with freedom of expression, and with
democracy, or is it going to be authoritarianism, and the
powerful forces of the government doing whatever they want,
whatever way they want? They are meeting right there, and you
are right in the middle of that challenge right now.
So we're so grateful to all of you. I am concerned about
the timing of things right now. We're pushing to get this bill
passed here in the Congress. But right now, we've got--I think
you talked about it, Joshua--National Day in China is coming up
on October 1st.
And I'm concerned about what mainland China's actions are
going to be in relation to that and whether there will be more
violence as a result as they try to flex their authority. And
I'd like to hear each of you talk about that.
And the second thing I am concerned about is the local
elections coming up in November. I want to hear from you about
whether you believe there is an opportunity here for the people
of Hong Kong to express themselves, or is mainland China trying
to subvert that by not permitting certain candidates to run and
not giving them permission to run, which is a foreign idea to
us here in the United States of America, but so important to
all of you.
And the third thing is, let's say a magic wand was all of a
sudden waved. And mainland China said, we are going to support
the idea of there being elections in the future in Hong Kong
for the leader. Instead of Carrie Lam being appointed, there
will be an election by the people.
That couldn't happen right away. It would take some time. I
would like to hear what you think about the timing. So let's
try and keep it brief. I know I talked a lot myself and used up
a lot of time.
But please--October 1st, election day and how impactful
that can be, and what the timing would be if they were to
agree, as one of the five demands, that there would be
universal suffrage?
So Joshua, you go first, please.
Mr. Wong. Troops were already moved to the border a few
weeks ago, a tactic the Beijing authorities have used to
generate a chilling effect. We are strongly aware that Carrie
Lam, the leader of Hong Kong, openly declared that she is
considering imposing an ``emergency ordinance'' in Hong Kong to
stop the protests. An ``emergency ordinance'' is the colonial-
era law similar to martial law. It authorizes the chief
executive of Hong Kong to shut down the internet, cut public
transport, and even cut air traffic.
We all know that the political crisis must be solved by
political system reform. That's the reason we urge Beijing not
to handpick the leader. Please let us enjoy the right of free
elections.
They are considering using this kind of martial law before
or after Chinese National Day. But I think that's not the only
reason people defending human rights should care about it. Even
businessmen that focus on enjoying economic freedom and an open
business environment should be aware of how Hong Kong is not
only on the brink of bloodshed, it is also under the threat of
martial law and ``white terror.''
So I really hope to have bipartisan support to pass the
Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act.
After explaining what is happening before or after Chinese
National Day, the upcoming district council elections are
scheduled on the 24th of November. With the track record of how
Beijing unseated democratically elected lawmakers, including
Nathan Law and Agnes Chow, the ones who hoped to run for office
early last year, we strongly expect and are aware that Beijing
will still keep its hardline policy toward Hong Kong and block
or buy youngsters to run for office.
As one who has engaged in street activism, I also hope the
voice of the young generation can be heard inside the
institution. And at the same time, I will also make sure that
the announcement will be in late September or early October as
to whether I will run for office on the district council or
not.
If the Beijing government bans me from running for office,
they must pay the price in Hong Kong protests and also in the
international community.
Representative Suozzi. So in Hong Kong, there are many pan-
democrats and many pro-Beijing folks? Is there a chance that
that could change, that that dynamic could change because of
the protests that are going on?
Mr. Wong. In the district council, we have 452 seats, and
more than 75 percent of the seats are mostly in the pro-Beijing
camp. And on the 24th of November, we hope the pro-democratic
camp can get a good turnout to show the power of the people.
Representative Suozzi. I just want to emphasize the timing
coming up. October 1 and November 24 are big days that could
have a big impact on what Beijing is doing and what is
happening from the people. And it could be a flashpoint--we
have to be very conscious of that.
Denise, do you want to go ahead?
Ms. Ho. Yes, personally, I don't feel that October 1st
would be something to stop the people from going onto the
streets as the sentiment is still very, very determined and
very strong among all walks of life. And so this fight has been
able to sustain itself because of this sort of creativity and
flexibility of the people. And I believe that without a sincere
answer or solution from the government, the people won't be
backing down.
And as to how the Communist government might suppress us on
even an escalating level, personally I feel that there are
probably already Chinese police among the Hong Kong police
force. There have been several occasions where the police
commanders have been heard speaking Mandarin to their officers.
So on this note, I believe that Hong Kong people are already
facing this sort of infiltration of the Chinese police into the
Hong Kong police force.
Representative Suozzi. Are you concerned about it
escalating around National Day?
Ms. Ho. Well, I mean it's already on a daily basis--this
sort of escalation where the police are patrolling the streets.
People are arrested just for being young, really. So, I think
we are already at that stage. That is why we call for the U.S.
Congress and also the international community to monitor this
regime--that is, the Xi Jinping regime--because we in Hong Kong
are protecting these values that we all believe in. And if we
fail, who knows what would happen to the world and to the next
stage.
Representative Suozzi. Thank you.
Sunny.
Mr. Cheung. Thank you for the question.
Personally, I think on National Day, actually, there will
be more escalation of the movement, because I know that the
Chinese authorities must want the Hong Kong people to respect
National Day. But on the other hand, Hong Kong protesters, they
know that it is important to have some symbolic movement on
National Day. And that is why there will be some escalation of
the movement.
But I doubt if the Chinese government will dare to use the
emergency law or send out the PLA to Hong Kong because
currently China relies on Hong Kong very much--much foreign
investment in China is still coming from Hong Kong. And that is
why if they deploy the PLA or try to use emergency laws to
crack down on Hong Kong protesters, I think this is not very
promising for Hong Kong people nor for the Beijing government.
The Beijing government will not do something like that, I feel.
Representative Suozzi. Sharon, if you could talk about the
elections a little bit also.
Ms. Hom. I think a couple of things. One is really
important that has not been raised.
In addition to the question of infiltration and use of
decoys, last August 2018, the People's Daily announced the
planned establishment of a Greater Bay Area police cooperation
mechanism among Guangdong, Hong Kong, and Macao. Related to and
part of this mechanism, the Guangdong public security
department conducted training of key Hong Kong police personnel
in Guangdong. This has been followed up on.
And one of the questions I think is important to press
either through the U.N. systems is to raise the question,
``Really? What kind of training?'' I am pretty sure that the
training did not include international standards on appropriate
use of force.
And the special procedures of the U.N. special experts--
just last week they issued a joint statement about concern and
also raising these questions of the need to make the police,
the Hong Kong police--there are very sophisticated detailed
standards on the use of force: that you are supposed to
deescalate, not escalate; you're supposed to reduce harm, not
create harm; and that there is a whole range of police crowd-
control mechanisms that they are supposed to choose according
to proportionality. So I wanted to just emphasize that.
On the timing of National Day, I think we can't lose sight
of the fact that Xi Jinping is not as powerful as we may think
or as he would like us to think, and that it is true that with
the consolidation of power, etc. and his ``no term limit''--now
both of the key positions--the fact is, what you're getting to
see, the tea leaves, if you look a little more closely, is that
the Party leaders inside are not happy with the way that Xi
Jinping has ``handled'' the Hong Kong situation.
Xi Jinping is actually in a lose-lose situation. It's a no-
win situation. He's stuck between the hardliners--who I am
pretty much concerned about--they are pushing for military
force, because he has already shown he's failed.
Deng Xiaoping took two months, shut down the whole 89
student and the democracy and free trade union movement. We are
now in the third month, so under the Party's timeframe on how
you ``handle'' these mass disputes, Xi has failed. So he's in a
pretty dicey situation.
October 1st. This is not just any anniversary. This is the
70th anniversary. So they have made a year's worth of enormous
investment in a film festival, special documentaries made. They
have said that no Chinese entertainment in this Chinese TV
recently. They have to show the history, etc. There's an
enormous amount of investment to keep the legitimacy and have a
wonderful birthday celebration for the country.
So he's stuck. It can't look bad. On the other hand, he's
stuck between the hardliners and the others who are saying,
``There's got to be a way to handle this. Not the way you're
doing it because now we look terrible. Now we look like the
thugs we are.''
And so I think that that is--what we should be monitoring
are the messages. And just last week, a very strange editorial
appeared in Qiushi, which as you know is one of the major party
organs. And in Qiushi, the editorial pointed out something very
strange. It said that whether a country's political--this is
our translation, sorry--``Whether a country's political system
is democratic and effective, one needs to mainly look at
whether the country's leadership ranks can rotate or alternate
in accordance with the law in an orderly fashion.''
What does this mean? We don't know. Because just the fact
that the constitution eliminated term limits for the top office
doesn't mean he'll stay.
So I think there are some other wild cards that are on the
table that we need to keep an eye on in terms of how the U.S.
Government can think about the options and policy options. Of
course, we support the legislative initiatives--this is very
important. But I think there's something much bigger underway
in terms of the politics in Beijing that will absolutely have
an impact on the decisions that will be made pre-October 1st
and after.
Representative Suozzi. Thank you.
Chairman McGovern. All right. Well, why don't we go to
Senator Young.
Senator Young. I just have a statement to make and I regret
I am going to have to leave after this.
But I wanted to say thank you, Mr. Wong, thank you, Ms. Ho,
for your courage, for your resolve, for your leadership in the
face of great trial and tribulation. Thank you for the example
you are setting for the world and for all that you're doing for
freedom-loving people.
I want to send a message to Beijing's Communists. And my
message is, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot seek to
trade with the wealthy nations of the world and rip off our
intellectual property. You cannot seek to be a trusted
international development partner and engage in predatory
economic practices through your Belt and Road Initiative, and
you cannot reap all the economic benefits, that you enjoy under
American law, of Hong Kong's special status while undermining
the rights of Hong Kongers, while eradicating their political
identity. We cannot allow this to happen.
So I look forward to working with you. I will be signing on
to the legislation offered by the cochairman of this committee
as you have encouraged us to do. And I will be seeking other
opportunities, perhaps in the immigration area, to provide
further relief to Hong Kongers who do not want to be a part of
this predatory regime that calls itself Communist, but in fact
is really fascist in many respects. And we must continue to
press it to change its behavior.
Thank you so much for your presence here.
Chairman McGovern. Thank you.
Mr. Smith.
Representative Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There is no disputing the fact that under Xi Jinping, human
rights abuses have seriously worsened. You name the area--from
torture, religious freedom.
Ms. Hom, you talked about the sinicization of religions
where every single religion or faith, including the Falun Gong,
Christians, Tibetan Buddhists, the Uyghurs, all have to comport
with the Communist model or else face severe torture,
incarceration, and even death. It is incredible what he is
doing and his regime and of course, all of that will be imposed
on Hong Kong unless there is a reversal of this trend.
On human trafficking, the Trump Administration has
designated China as a Tier 3 country because of sex and labor
trafficking. It has gotten seriously worse over the last
several years.
So every place you look, it is worse. Xi Jinping is
bringing dishonor to himself and to his government with his
abuse of people. I think we need to say that loud and clear.
The great father of Chinese democracy, Wei Jingsheng, once
said--and I had him at a hearing and I actually met him in
Beijing when he was let out briefly to get Olympics 2000, which
the Chinese government didn't get. So they rearrested him and
beat him almost senseless.
Well, he said, you know, you Westerners don't get it. You
do coddle dictatorship. You do allow and enable by your
weakness. You've got to look a dictatorship in the eye and say,
``We're not kidding.'' Conditionality of human rights either
occurs or we're not going to be trading with you and allowing
you to use the economic power that you've got to further
incarcerate and further repress.
The lessons of the Soviet Union were not learned when it
came to China. I got elected in 1981. My first trip was to
Moscow and Leningrad on behalf of Soviet Jews. And frankly, the
Reagan Administration stood up strongly to the powers in Moscow
and said, ``Human rights matter.''
And it did matter and thankfully we saw a change. Of
course, under Putin it's still bad, but not as bad as it was
during those years. I raise all of that because when it comes
to China, we have not learned the lessons of conditionality
with regard to human rights. I say that with sadness, with
great sadness.
When we did the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act in 1986,
not only did I vote for it, but we had a world coalition saying
this egregious behavior will not be tolerated. Therefore, we
are going to hold you to account and no longer provide
munitions--that was section 317, I believe, of that bill--which
Mr. McGovern's bill (the PROTECT Hong Kong Act), which I have
cosponsored, would seek to do with the police. Mr. Garrett, you
might want to speak to that.
But we've got to be serious about all of this. And I just
bring this up because it deeply concerns me that we just keep
not learning the lessons.
Nancy Pelosi, Frank Wolf, David Bonior, and I all opposed
MFN for China after Tiananmen Square. George Herbert Walker
Bush thought he could manage the whole thing. He was our
Ambassador to China. And as it turned out, we managed it
extraordinarily poorly.
Bill Clinton came in and said, ``Let's link human rights
with MFN trade.'' One year later, he delinked it. And the
lesson learned by the dictatorship in Beijing was--profits
trump human rights.
And I have tried for five years to get my bill passed, our
bill. It's a collective bill, House and Senate, bipartisan. And
the same people who said just trade more and somehow China will
matriculate from dictatorship to democracy have been proven
wrong again.
And if it wasn't for the great people of Hong Kong standing
up so powerfully at great loss to their liberty, going to
prison, being arrested, being harassed, and even tortured and
killed--this Congress needs to wake up and say, finally, at
long last, we're going to put conditionality on this.
So if you want to speak to that, I would appreciate it.
There have been 1,000 arrests since the activities occurred.
What is the status of the prosecutions?
Joshua, we know your case. But there are many other cases
that are in obscurity right now. What has happened to those
individuals? And just generally on the police--are the police
largely newer recruits who are more ideologically aligned with
Beijing? Or are they the old hands who have just now become
even more repressive than they had been in the past?
If you could speak to those things, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Wong. With more than 1,500 Hong Kongers arrested in the
past three months, more than 200 of them have been prosecuted
already. I am among them and we are also aware of activists who
were already detained inside prison before any trial started.
That is the ``sugar-coated'' rule of law and the Hong Kong-
style legal system under the pressure of Beijing.
I've been arrested and prosecuted with the charge of
unauthorized assembly. Even after the experience of being
jailed for around 120 days, the price I paid is ``a piece of
cake,'' because lots of our teammates--from my understanding,
more than 100 of them face riot charges and may be locked up in
prison for more than 10 years.
Five years ago during the Umbrella Movement, we were just
arrested for unlawful assembly and would face maybe months or
one to two years in jail. But now youngsters at the age of 15,
who should be enjoying their summer holiday, who should be
spending time on summer vacation with their friends and family
but are now being prosecuted and facing trial, and maybe at 15
or 16--golden years for them--might be already locked up in
prison.
And we have activist Edward Leung, who fights for Hong
Kong's freedom, already being locked up in prison. He faces six
years in prison.
Massive arrests and prosecution seem to be Beijing's tactic
to silence our voice. And yet our movement keeps its momentum--
just like two weeks ago, more than 200,000 Hong Kongers marched
to the U.S. Consulate in Hong Kong and urged the United States
to pass the bill and show global solidarity.
We are also aware that the cabinet of chief executives,
which means members from the Executive Council, last week
openly declared that Hong Kong's chief executive enjoys the
right to appoint any secret police. ``Secret police'' is not a
term created by activists or created by journalists. It is the
term written in the current ordinance and regulation. It could
authorize the Hong Kong chief executive to appoint anyone,
whether they live in Hong Kong or mainland China, and
regardless of their background.
They can be appointed to the Hong Kong police force and
continue to use life-threatening force to crack down on our
protests. That is the ``white terror'' and why all of us
describe Hong Kong as a police state.
Ms. Ho. I would like to add that among those who have been
arrested and charged with riot, a lot of them have been on the
sites, but they have not been on the front lines. They were
just near the front lines, and some of them have been first
aiders who have been helping other people get up and get away
from the sites, social workers and, of course, the legislators
who have been arrested. They were not charged with riot, but
that is something that is shocking to the Hong Kong people--to
have these legislators arrested.
And so on top of that, I would like to add that the
situation, that is, in Hong Kong, is spreading into the
international world where this Communist tactic of silencing
people with fear and with money, it's everywhere, really. It's
not only in Hong Kong.
As I said just now, there have been incidents in Australia
where government institutions have kept away from me and other
Chinese artists for fear of being associated with us, and in
Canada where Hong Kong activists have been banned from a gay
pride event because of security concerns. So they say.
The fact is that the Communist government, they use this
sort of--the money where the brands and businesses, they would
be adding this sort of suppression onto their employees and
other people. And then everyone would be just silencing
themselves.
So this also is causing a lot of fear among Hong Kongers
and that is why this movement has been largely anonymous
because we know for a fact that if we show our faces, then we
would be arrested and prosecuted for riot or unlawful assembly.
Mr. Cheung. I would like to supplement what Denise has just
mentioned about this problematic law. Actually, the Human
Rights Council of the United Nations has decried the public
order ordinance, which is a colonial law in Hong Kong. The
Department of Justice and the police force in Hong Kong can use
this public order ordinance to prosecute those protesters in a
very easy way. And when they do, then it is easy for the
protestors to be assumed guilty. And that's why this law should
be abolished by the government. And we urge that the
international community should also be aware of this law.
And apart from that, I had a personal experience--I had a
tutorial kid. And he was arrested in one of the political
disputes around the confrontation during the movement. When
that kid was arrested, he immediately asked the police officer
to--asked him can he call his lawyer. And the police officer
told him, ``Of course you can't . . . because I want to torture
you. Because I want to make you suffer.''
These police officers, they said something like that to a
kid who is just under 18. And this is a real situation in Hong
Kong. That's why many people are very frustrated and angry
about the police brutality problem.
Ms. Hom. The prosecutions are related to the application of
the public order ordinance that results in an unlawful
assembly. So the ``notice of no objection'' process contributes
to that, that's the tool. Hong Kongers then face this
ridiculous situation where they have to file an application for
a notice of no objection to a peaceful assembly that is to
protest police violence.
So you have the police denying the notice of no objection,
therefore making it an unlawful assembly for an assembly that
is to protest police violence. So that's really important that
through this kind of misuse of that process, they are really
violating international standards for peaceful assembly by
imposing this kind of unduly restrictive administrative
procedure.
The police, under this procedure, then can act as both
enforcement, prosecutor--because they are naming this--saying
this is a riot. But a determination of ``riot'' requires a
legal process. It's for the court to look at the evidence. It's
for the court to see if this person engaged in illegal behavior
and alleged violence, etc.
So right now, the police are acting as enforcement,
prosecution, and executioner of orders. And that is part of the
problem; on top of that, we have concerns with politicized
decision-making by the prosecution.
This was also noted by independent U.N. experts several--
maybe two years ago saying that they were concerned about a
potential pattern of politicized decisions that were being made
on whom to prosecute and whom to pursue.
Mr. Garrett. There is an issue regarding whether Hong
Kongers can get a fair trial in Hong Kong in the future. And a
large reason for this is the heavy amount of propaganda coming
from the Central People's government, whether it is Chinese
state media organizations or it is so-called mainstream media
organizations who quote them and cite them ubiquitously.
So when the Chinese regime characterizes demonstrators as
separatists, extremists, terrorists, this is already setting an
expectation for the Hong Kong judiciary to act, as well as law
enforcement, not only in the charges that they decide to lay
against a protester, but also the sentences that they're trying
to give people.
The pro-Beijing United Front Movement in Hong Kong has been
very aggressive in attacking judges that it feels have been too
lenient with protesters. And this goes back a number of years.
They derogatorily refer to them as ``yellow judges,'' referring
to the yellow ribbons from the Umbrella Revolution.
There have been threats made by pro-Beijing people toward
the judiciary, in general, that have gone unprosecuted. So this
is a real issue.
Also, because of the 2016 Oathgate intervention by the
National People's Congress, there's an expectation that Hong
Kong judges will uphold the national security of the Communist
Party. So if you render a decision inconsistent with that
national security expectation, you may be vulnerable to
disqualification. Now this has not happened, but this is the
logic that is being used to disqualify candidates of the
district council, the Legislative Council elections, and so
forth.
Regarding the police--touching on Sharon's comments
earlier--the Hong Kong police also went to Xinjiang as
observers to learn how they handle ``mass incidents.'' There
was very little visibility on that.
We know that the PLA in Hong Kong, there is some
interaction with them. The Hong Kong PLA garrison commander has
observed some of their passing out parades and so forth.
But one of the most dangerous and I think terrifying things
for most Hong Kongers is that the Hong Kong police now act
without wearing uniforms, without any type of identification.
You can be grabbed off the street. You can be grabbed from your
home. Nobody shows you any type of formal identification. You
don't know if they are a police officer. You don't know if they
are a triad, a patriotic vigilante, or if somebody from the
mainland is kidnapping you. So this is a major issue.
Now, as for the Communist Party, they view law enforcement
as their concept of the rule of law or rule by law. And so the
support--basically, the Hong Kong police have been given carte
blanche to do whatever they want. And as Carrie Lam said
before, the Hong Kong police are seen as the last line in this.
So the policing issue is a major problem in Hong Kong.
Chairman McGovern. Senator King.
Senator King. Mr. Chairman, Representative McAdams was here
long before I arrived. So I'll defer to him.
Chairman McGovern. Representative McAdams, go ahead.
Representative McAdams. Thank you. Thank you, Senator.
Today marks a significant day in United States history. It
was 232 years ago on this very day that our forefathers signed
the United States Constitution. So it's, I think, with some
significance that we welcome you here today to the United
States Congress, the House and the Senate, to share your
testimony and as you share in this struggle, this global
struggle of humanity for freedom and independence.
That Constitution signed 232 years ago today created a
federal system, one with a Senate and a House, that oftentimes
by design there's some tension between these two bodies. It
created three branches of government--an executive branch, a
legislative branch, and a judicial branch.
An outgrowth of that system is our two political parties
that oftentimes also struggle for our ideas to move forward. It
created a federal system with now 50 states that also--there's
a healthy tension, sometimes unhealthy, but there is a tension
within that system as we struggle to move forward ideas and the
rule of law. One thing that I think is important to note,
though, is that we all stand together. This is a legislative
and executive branch, that we stand together, Republicans and
Democrats, in support of the struggle for human rights, for the
rule of law, and for freedom for Hong Kong.
And I would echo the sentiments that have been expressed
earlier, that we cannot have it both ways. We cannot have the
rule of law and human rights and the struggle for freedom with
the actions that we see that are undermining the very nature of
that system in Hong Kong today. And so it's incredibly
troubling to me to see what we have seen play out over the last
six months.
And forecasting into the future, some of the efforts to
undermine the sanctuaries of democracy and human rights that we
see right now--some of those sanctuaries and foundations of
freedom as we've seen in the United States and we also see in
Hong Kong, the freedom of democracy and government through
elections, the freedom of academia and for ideas to thrive in
an academic system, economic freedom for individuals, and
economic competition, and the rule of law where every
individual is treated fairly and equally under the law, and
human rights--are protected.
So my concern and what I would love for you to comment on
is where we go from here and with some very troubling signs on
the horizon.
So I would like you to comment on, Mr. Wong--let me commend
all of you who are examples and the founders of freedom whose
names I hope will be remembered 232 years from now in the
struggle for freedom in Hong Kong. But Mr. Wong, Ms. Ho, Mr.
Cheung, and Ms. Hom, thank you for your efforts and struggles
for Hong Kong.
I would love for you to comment on--first of all, Mr. Wong,
the struggle in elections--for individuals to step forward.
Over the last several years, the government has--as you
referenced--has repeatedly rejected the nomination of
candidates running for political office who have supported or
been affiliated with self-determination. What challenges does
that impose today and going forward for individuals who are
willing to put themselves and their names forward?
Taking that same look at the foundations of freedom of
thought--to academia--what support do academic institutions
give to students as they raise their voices in support of
intellectual freedom and human rights, and also to the free
economy, as businesses--Ms. Ho, as I believe you spoke about--
some of the concerns with Cathay Pacific and efforts that
undermine individuality and freedom of thought in the
marketplace of ideas and in the workplace. What is happening in
these respective spheres and foundations of democracy and how
can we best support freedom of thought?
Mr. Wong. Just let me explain what is on the mind of the
young generation. In the past few years after the end of the
Umbrella Movement, lots of youngsters, even if they uphold
different kinds of political belief, they still have the
awareness and consensus. They hope their words can be heard
inside this institution.
Apart from taking to the streets joining protests, it is
also significant for us to push forward political system/
election reform. Unfortunately, with all the political
censorship, even I am considering running for office. And I
will make a formal announcement in late September or early
October.
I am still aware of how Beijing hopes to bar this whole
generation of youngsters from entering the institution. But we
are lucky that with the determination and courage of Hong
Kongers, they just turned a whole generation of youngsters into
dissidents, and not just the baby boomers. Even Gen X and
millennials have joined the fight with solidarity and unity.
So I will just make it clear. Hong Kong is not only
suffering from a political crisis. We are also suffering from a
humanitarian crisis, especially how the Hong Kong police force
just hardline suppresses us, whether it be the sexual
harassment experienced by a young woman arrested, or an injured
protester pulled down from the ambulance by riot police
directly. Or how an arrested person--it is really difficult for
them--being refused the right to contact a lawyer or even seek
any kind of medical treatment.
I think this kind of hardline suppression will just turn
the whole of my generation and the generation younger than me,
whether on the street or getting inside an institution, we will
keep on together with this uphill battle and we hope that the
U.S. Congress can stand with Hong Kong.
Ms. Ho. Yes, on the cultural side and on the freedom-of-
thought side of things, 90 percent of it, probably, has been
eroded--all of ``show business'' has been--is in the control of
the Communist government. I, along with just a very small
handful of actors and singers, have spoken up for these
movements, but the rest of the celebrities have kept their
silence.
And they have been forced to participate in these support
campaigns on social media, ``Oh, I support the Hong Kong
police,'' or ``I am a protector of the national flag''
campaigns where they have to voice their support for the
Chinese government or else they would be prosecuted or
censored--people like us.
Businesses, of course, have also been pressured into
obstructing these freedoms of Hong Kongers, namely the MTR, our
subway system; they have closed down stations in times of
protest, thereby making it very easy for the police to arrest
people and also very difficult for people to leave the sites.
That was a result--I believe there was an article in the
People's Daily, the state newspaper, where they have named the
MTR Corporation, saying that they have been helping the people.
I do think that in a free society, these businesses and
corporations have an obligation, a social responsibility to
keep up this kind of integrity, at least to safeguard our
freedoms, which they have failed to do. And like, right now, we
do not have many solutions to these problems because, aside
from the people protesting, these businesses are exercising
their suppression onto the people.
We hope that the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act
with these sanctions on government officials--and hopefully
this could extend to these corporations who have been violating
the Basic Law, the freedom of speech--hopefully this would be
monitoring the businesses and also, of course, the government
institutions in Hong Kong.
Mr. Cheung. From the academic perspective, I believe we
need to have a correct understanding of China first. In 1989
Professor Fukuyama famously declared ``the end of history''
because he believed democracy was the ultimate form of human
government and that the ideology of Communism or of terrorism
would have no place in the coming world.
But apparently, two decades after he gave his speech, he
was wrong. And we cannot keep using the mindset of the old
times that we should continue the engagement policy toward
China. We should abandon the engagement policy and try to use a
more assertive way to try to understand China.
Because on campuses we know that the Chinese government
tried to establish a lot of Confucius Institutes around the
world. And with those Confucius Institutes they are creating
propaganda--trying to influence the youth in other countries--
including your kids.
This is not reasonable. Canada's government last year
started to shut down some of the Confucius Institutes. And I
believe this is a global fight because when we uphold academic
freedom and freedom of speech on campus, the Chinese
government, apparently they do not agree with that.
And when many Hong Kong people over the past few months
supported the movement in Hong Kong and have organized a lot of
rallies across the globe, in Australia, in the U.K., in the
U.S., they have received a lot of frightening letters, and they
are being followed. Their home addresses are being posted on
social media.
And that is why we need all the countries, including the
U.S., to support Hong Kong people on campus and to uphold and
support academic freedom in the long run. Thank you.
Ms. Hom. I think the question that all of this is related
to is China's clear exercise of soft, hard, and sharp power.
And so I want to say a couple of things on the academic front.
In the U.S., we have over 300,000 Chinese students from the
mainland and also students elsewhere. I think Joshua saw
recently, up close and personal, when he spoke at Columbia,
what the actions of the students are. I'm not raising it to
suggest that there's an easy answer, but I do think that we
must be thinking about how we--and I use it for lack of a
better word--engage the fact that we're welcoming students into
U.S. institutions.
I teach a human rights course at NYU as well. And I had
some mainlanders who were afraid if they took the course, other
people would report them--if there were students in the class
who were observers, So, I am saying that mainland students here
face censorship as well. Some are protesting in support of Hong
Kong, but we also have to recognize that they are all under
surveillance, with families back home.
I really want to echo Denise's call to bring in the role of
the companies. In particular, as the PROTECT Hong Kong Act
moves forward in discussions--and I know that it's going
through the legislative process--I think it would be really
good to think about and address the question of the U.S.
companies, because not only will the denial of export licenses
really address the issue--it will address the issue of no
longer being complicit-- but will it address the issue of the
actual category of lethal and nonlethal materials?
And I wanted to point out that China hosts the China
International Exhibition on Police Equipment every two years.
The next one--they're all held in Beijing--will be held on May
12th to the 15th. That's a really important date. And they sell
and they have thousands of exhibitors and companies from all
over the world. And in the past, we have been monitoring. Many
U.S. companies have gone to exhibit and sell, and then
afterwards report very proudly on the----
[Voices from the hall.]
Ms. Hom [continuing]. Are we singing? Okay. Not yet. Not
yet, right? Not singing yet.
But they've also reported on the hundreds, the millions of
dollars worth of contracts that they were able to secure in
Beijing.
So, I think one thought might be to--aside from--or in
addition to export licenses, what about technology transfers?
What about collaboration? What about them training the Chinese
partner companies? What are the other things that need to be in
place? Because China has been named an economic competitor of
the U.S. It's not an even playing field. They're an economic
competitor where the SOEs are dominating the economy. You are
not investing in all the U.S. companies, but China is investing
in all the key industries. And that is technology, AI, the
military sector, financial services, and the major
telecommunications companies in the ICT sector, are completely
state-owned enterprises.
So I want to share one final thought for what can be done
going forward. At the end of this year, China rotates off the
Human Rights Council in 2020.
I think that the U.S. Government has left the Council for
various analyses of its effectiveness, but that does not take
away from the fact that the U.S. is still viewed as a leading
player among all the member states on the Council. You can
exercise your role as an observer state. You can also exercise
your very influential role in working with other democratic
governments to issue joint statements, joint initiatives.
So I think 2020 is particularly important. And in
particular, that is the year to push because you are also on
the NGO committee of ECOSOC. That is the year to support and
push for the reforms that are needed to allow independent civil
society groups to be able to participate.
As you know, my organization had applied for ECOSOC status,
over the last 30 years, and both times you can't make it out of
the NGO committee because China goes [gestures slitting of
throat]. And that's it. It's ``end of story.''
So I think it's very important that the U.S. can raise the
issues not only as an observer in the Human Rights Council but
in the General Assembly. And I know the USG is quite active on
the Third and Fifth Committees. That's where I think it's
really important to exercise leadership. 2020 is the year you
can push because China will be there with its client states and
threatening proxy states to support them while they're off the
Council. But the point is, they won't have a vote, so I think
it's a good year to perhaps get some traction.
Mr. Garrett. I will just make a couple of quick comments.
One is the U.S. has law enforcement cooperation with the
Hong Kong police, and this may need to be reconsidered or
looked at more strongly in the future. Second, basically as far
as companies go in Hong Kong, there is a ``one country, two
systems'' apartheid-like system where patriotic companies are
privileged over other companies. If you happen to be a pro-
democracy supporter, you're at the bottom if not an enemy.
Regarding Hong Kong universities--if I remember my count
correctly, there are seven public ones. They are all funded by
the SAR government. So this puts pressure on the type of
academic agendas, research interests, and so forth. And there
are real problems if you're considered a sensitive personality
like Benny Tai, or if you are researching sensitive issues.
That may or may not be clearly evident.
There are also a lot of things that happen in Hong Kong
related to academic and other freedoms that are above the
waterline and below the waterline. One of the things that the
Hong Kong police are doing right now is I.D. checks writ large.
So even if you aren't arrested, your name is being recorded
and associated as being at a protest site. Now this may come
down later on in some hiring decision, some vetting process by
state-owned enterprises or other patriotic Hong Kong companies.
Former Chief Executive CY Leung discussed such a possibility
back--I think it was around 2014 or 2012.
And my last comment would be that Chinese state-owned
enterprises incorporated in Hong Kong should not be treated as
Hong Kong companies. Thank you.
Chairman McGovern. Thank you.
I know we have two Senators here. There's a vote on, so I
am going to yield to Senator King, but if we could just keep
our answers short so they both can get their questions in, I
think that would be helpful.
Senator King.
Senator King. Thank you.
Ms. Hom, I'm struggling with the fact that we've got an
island of democracy in a sea of repression. You've got a
country which now seems to be perfecting the control state.
Millions of cameras, facial recognition, oppression of the
Uyghurs, religion, everything, and yet you've got Hong Kong.
You have two societies moving in opposite directions.
Very briefly, what's the solution . . . or is there one?
Where does this end, as a practical matter? As a practical
matter, there are 7 million Hong Kongers and almost 800 million
mainlanders, whatever that number is.
The other piece that I wanted to ask is, is there any
sympathy for the Hong Kongers within the mainland? Is there a
nascent--I wouldn't call it a democracy movement, but at least
a freedom of expression movement, or is the government in such
firm control that that's a fantasy? Give me a picture of where
this goes.
Ms. Hom. Thank you. I have no answers because this is an
ongoing struggle. But I do want to say that the control state--
you've put your finger right on it. China has built a whole
ecosystem of control through technology, through the law. We
didn't even talk about the cybersecurity law----
Senator King. The most thorough in the history of the
world.
Ms. Hom. Most comprehensive, because it also is built on
self-censorship. It's also built on whole social platforms of
community reporting on each other. So there is this whole
ecosystem which is pretty comprehensive that feeds each other.
But the one thing about technology that's interesting is that
the asymmetry of power that you could have, a very powerful
authoritarian state, it has not been able--notwithstanding the
mass crackdown on lawyers, notwithstanding torture on the
mainland, notwithstanding the killing of untold thousands in
the 1989 crackdown; they have not--the Communist Party has not
been able to shut down people, Chinese people, who continue to
work for a whole range of human rights. So, that's the first
point.
The second thing we haven't really mentioned is that Hong
Kong has always been, since '89, the only city--and I will say
within formal China--that has over 100,000 people every year on
June 4th--remembering. It was Hong Kong students, it was Hong
Kong journalists who went up to Beijing to support the
democracy movement in 1989. And there are very moving stories
of the protesters knowing that the tanks were coming. But they
said let the Hong Kong students through--they must make it
safely back because they will tell our story.
Senator King. Can the Beijing regime tolerate Hong Kong?
Isn't Hong Kong a fundamental threat to this whole control
regime?
Ms. Hom. Half of Hong Kong is a fundamental threat. The
part of Hong Kong that can be its golden goose that lays the
golden egg, they like that part. But that goose is not living
on a free-range farm. And they want that golden goose to
absolutely keep laying those eggs, but with no air, no freedom,
no this, no that.
So they're trying to do something impossible. They're
trying to keep half of Hong Kong denying the reality of who and
what Hong Kong is because Hong Kongers have--we have had a
history of freedom. We've had a history of working courts and
independence. You can't just wipe it away.
Sympathy from mainlanders, I know, because I also teach
human rights seminars at some institutions in Hong Kong, that
mainlanders participate in the demonstrations. And I can tell
you, when they participate in the demonstrations in Hong Kong,
their family back home on the mainland will get a knock on the
door and a visit from the public security saying, your
daughter, your son, is in those marches. Tell them to stop.
So mainlanders in Hong Kong are--it's not just what you see
in the media of Hong Kongers fighting. There are mainlanders
who support and are inspired by Hong Kongers--that's what
Beijing is afraid of. They're afraid, that's why they first
censored everything. And then suddenly they realized, oh my
gosh. We cannot censor it. Everybody actually has those illegal
VPNs and they are getting the information.
So then they started doing the disinformation because the
blackout did not work.
The other point is that there have been mainlanders from
the beginning, in June, who have expressed support for the Hong
Kong democracy movement online. What has happened to them?
Arrested, detained, threatened, intimidated, etc.
So, notwithstanding the full force of an authoritarian
police state, they're not able to shut it down. And, Mr. King,
they're not able to tell mainlanders who do see what they're
seeing, and who are not afraid, and are willing to also pay the
price to support Hong Kong's movement, because they understand
that if Hong Kongers can hold the line, then the mainlanders
who also want democracy and freedom can also have a chance. But
Hong Kongers are the front line.
Senator King. Well, I want to join my colleagues in
thanking you all. It's hard for us to conceive of the courage
that it takes. There's no doubt that in this room today is
someone reporting to Beijing about each of your testimony.
Ms. Hom. That's right. That's right. So, please make sure
we are stated properly. I don't want any misquotes.
[Laughter.]
Senator King. And I want to thank you for your courage to
speak the truth. And hopefully we will be able to pass some of
this legislation to make it clear to the regime in Beijing that
democracy is an important value and that we are not going to
just pay lip service to it. Thank you all very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McGovern. Thank you all very much.
Senator Daines.
Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank this panel for coming before this
Commission and providing some perspective and expertise on this
important and very timely topic.
As many of you know, I spent more than five years living in
Guangzhou and part of that time in Hong Kong back in the 1990s
when I was in the private sector raising a family. In fact we
have four children. Our two youngest children were both born in
Hong Kong.
I'm deeply concerned with the ongoing erosion of autonomy
and human rights in the region, and I will tell you I stand
with the citizens of Hong Kong. In fact, just this past month I
helped lead a legislative exchange between the U.S. and six
LegCo leaders who came to my home state of Montana.
This event was important to better understand the situation
in Hong Kong and identifying what some of the key issues were
and having a very open and free exchange.
As the leader of the free world, we, the United States, and
the entire world, must continue to support the autonomy and the
freedom of Hong Kong. It is ``one country, two systems.''
I was in Hong Kong on June 30, 1997 and saw the Union Jack
come down for the last time. The Hong Kong Central Government
needs to work with protesters to accept the demands put forward
by the citizens of the country, and the use of excessive force
by the police must end immediately. We must continue to work
together towards building a strong relationship between our two
countries.
A question--and I'll start with Mr. Wong. The protesters
have formed a consensus around five demands, including
withdrawal of the extradition bill and, of course, universal
suffrage. Does the government need to comply with all five
demands immediately, or is there a phase or alternative outcome
that might be acceptable?
Mr. Wong. Hong Kong people have fought for free elections
and universal suffrage since three decades ago, even earlier
than I was born. All five demands are the consensus of Hong
Kongers who took to the streets in the past three months. All
those five demands are also within the existing constitutional
framework, especially Beijing fulfilling promises of the Sino-
British Joint Declaration and recognizing the importance of
letting Hong Kong people enjoy freedom and autonomy, especially
with the goal of Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong.
So I would say that the democracy movement and protests
must continue until the day we have democracy, even while we
strongly experience the state capitalist regime crackdown on
Hong Kong human rights. So I will say that.
Now we have continued our summer of discontent--it has
become the year of discontent. We just hope the world will
understand more how Hong Kong people are in a difficult time in
this long-term and uphill battle.
Senator Daines. Let me in, if I could--and thank you. I've
got a vote coming up I have to get to, and I am probably going
to get there quickly.
A final question. How do you expect Chief Executive Carrie
Lam will respond to these demands? And how much power does she
have to make concessions, or would Beijing have the final say?
Mr. Wong. That's an extremely good question. Carrie Lam
represents a puppet government hand-picked by Beijing. She is
not a decision-maker.
What we realized is--withdraw the bill or not, stopping
police brutality or not, allowing Hong Kong people to enjoy a
free election or not, all depends on the Beijing authorities
instead of the chief executive of Hong Kong. Carrie Lam doesn't
have a say in it. She's just following orders from the Beijing
authorities, especially on how the state council in Beijing
regularly holds press conferences in the past few weeks to
criticize Hong Kong protests. It has already been shown how
Carrie Lam can't solve the political crisis through her
personal capacity.
Senator Daines. All right. Thank you. I've got to get to--I
would love to keep the discussion going longer, but I've got to
go down to the floor and vote.
Thank you very much.
Chairman McGovern. Thank you very much.
And I think Mr. Smith has one additional question?
Representative Smith. Well, thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman. I do appreciate it.
If I could--and Ms. Hom, you did mention it, and I think it
bears a little further scrutiny.
The notion that there is no such thing as a free lunch, in
my opinion, applies (on steroids) to the issue of Confucius
Centers, which are just agents of influence pushing the Beijing
line. In the past in both my Subcommittee on Human Rights,
which I chaired, and this commission, I've held a series of
hearings on Confucius Centers as well as on those entities--
universities, colleges--that get access to mainland China
especially, and get an enormous number of perks, money, and
physical plant venues for their colleges or universities,
including NYU.
As a matter of fact, I had the chancellor of NYU testify at
one of my hearings and asked if I could go and speak. And he
allowed me to come and give a speech or a lecture on human
rights in Shanghai at the NYU campus.
But the concern is that they are en route to 1,000 or
something like that, globally--that is to say the Chinese
government--with these Confucius Centers. We have 96 in the
United States. Eighty-two are public. Fourteen are private.
One of the things that I'm most concerned about--and Rob
Portman and I asked for a GAO report on this that finally came
out in February of this year--and that is to look at the terms
and conditions, which really are mostly secret. But we have a
situation where hand-picked teachers come to the United States,
come to Africa, go to Africa, I should say, Latin America,
everywhere. And they seemingly are doing education in the
language and culture, but it's all about the worldview and the
domestic defense of Xi Jinping's policies, including Hong Kong.
My question very specifically is, what are the Confucius
Centers? Do you have any insight as to what they are saying
about what is going on in Hong Kong right now? And those U.S.-
based universities and colleges that are in China today, what
are they able to say and do without fear of retaliation, like
at the NYU campus in Shanghai, about this great human rights
pro-democracy effort on the part of all of you in Hong Kong?
Ms. Hom. I will start off. Thank you.
I think it's important also to note that the Confucius
Institutes and the pushbacks have also been led by really
active, wonderful activism by students for Free Tibet and the
Tibetan community supported by the Uyghurs. And I think they've
had some really good victories that show you really can push
back and get the institutions to be more accountable and
reliable.
I think the quick answer as to what they are saying is:
What they can say will always be under the guidelines right
now. Now the ideological campaign that's under way, where every
single Party nonmember has to participate in political study,
that the line of the day--what can be reported in Xinhua, what
can be reported in the news, everything--will be determined
from the top.
If you say anything, and as you know under the new
regulations, under the Cybersecurity Act for the news, news is
defined very broadly to include opinion and commentary,
including blogging. So you can't say, blog, or think anything
except in conformity with the line that comes down on Hong
Kong. Currently, the line is, it is a ``riot'' backed up by
``black hands,'' led by the U.S. interfering in a domestic
affair and violating China's sovereignty.
This is the same old chestnut we all hear over and over.
They've got to get a better story here. But that's what they
keep saying. So I think that is now the dominant line on what
anyone can say. Because if you say anything against that, for
example, you have a different idea, not only are you violating
the new news regulations, you're also running the risk of being
accused of subversion, incitement, because that is defined as
challenging the Party's views.
So I think that's why it is so important that the
authoritarian system in the mainland must change. It's got to
change. I know I've heard some of my friends and colleagues say
to the U.S.: Please, save us. I actually have another angle on
that. I think Hong Kong people will save ourselves. I think
Hong Kong people are going to do it.
What I think is necessary from the international community
is, please help make the human cost less--because it's very
clear and heartbreaking that the young people are ready to go
to the mat. And I think the key is, as I think the U.S.
Government and this Commission are doing, is to stand by so
that the human costs can be mitigated a little bit.
Representative Smith. Understood. But how do the teachers
in the Confucius Institutes get their marching orders?
Ms. Hom. This is like going inside of a black box, but let
me speculate. I am pretty sure that all the curricula are
approved and reviewed. I'm pretty sure they don't exercise
academic freedom and say, here is a creative thing I can do
about Hong Kong. I am pretty sure that they are all approved
curricula.
How do we know this? Because you will see nothing there
about '89. There are just big holes in that history. What's
happening and all of the--you will probably read about the
diverse ethnic groups in China, happy people, happy Tibetans,
happy Uyghurs. You'll probably see that version of what is
happening. I am pretty sure.
The other thing is if the--those institutes are also
monitored. So if anyone says anything that actually challenges
the dominant narrative, I'm pretty sure that teacher will be in
trouble.
So I think it's pretty tightly controlled. And the money is
the enticement to universities. And I think not only just for
the Confucius Institutes, they sometimes come along with
perhaps other incentives like an endowed chair, like money for
a program. So I think there's this kind of institutional
collapse in the face of this.
Because Senator Daines left, can I say something to him
anyway?
Senator, I'm so sorry, but I really think it's important.
As you are somebody who loves Hong Kong and personally and
professionally and as a member from the private sector, I think
we need to also remember that every single SOE, state-owned
enterprise, has a Party committee. And now that requirement has
extended to companies with foreign investments and foreign
companies.
I had a Canadian company ask me, how could that be? Why are
they making us establish a Party committee? I said, you're not
being targeted. All the companies will have to have a Party
committee.
What does the Party committee do? Review your personnel,
review your management, review your business decisions, make
sure everybody is ideologically pure, blah, blah, blah, like
that. Do they hide this? Not a secret.
Look at past annual reports of China Telecom, China Mobile.
They have pictures of the annual meeting of the Party committee
saying, ``We did good. The Party committee's happy with us this
year. We complied.''
So I think American companies going in, there are listed
SOEs. I think Apple Daily reported over 120 that are listed--
Chinese companies listed on the Hong Kong exchange. They all
have Party committees within their management structure.
So I think we need to look at that when you're looking at
these other actors.
Chairman McGovern. Well, thank you very much. You have been
very patient. You have been here for 21/2
hours. I am the last person. So you have to bear with me a
little bit more, but this hearing is winding down.
First of all, let me thank everybody for being here.
Everybody's testimony has been, I think, informative and has
given us some marching orders. I appreciate your responses to
the questions.
And, you know, Congressman Smith earlier on in the hearing
referenced the past inaction by the U.S. Government in response
to human rights abuses in China and we've kind of looked the
other way, or we thought more trade would do it, or more this
or that would do it, or whatever. And really things haven't
gotten any better. Things are continuing to get worse.
And I think it's fair to say that for the most part, the
U.S. Government has been very good at kind of talking the talk.
When it comes to Tibet, we issue the obligatory statement that
we respect the right of the Tibetan people to practice their
religion and we respect His Holiness, the Dalai Lama. But the
repression continues and there's no consequence.
I think part of what we're trying to do is change that.
Just talk in and of itself doesn't end up changing anything.
There needs to be a consequence. So we are trying to move
legislation forward that would impose that consequence. And I
think it is very clear from everybody here that the PROTECT
Hong Kong Act and the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act
are important items for us to pass in the House and Senate. And
I believe, and I can probably give you an assurance, that we
will do that. I mean, you know, it does not happen here
overnight.
Senator Rubio talked about hearings that are happening in
the Senate. We have assurances from the relevant committees in
the House that they will move on this. And I believe they will
come to the House floor and they will come to the Senate floor
and they will receive bipartisan support. So that will happen.
So we get the message on that, and we will follow through. So
we have our assignments.
Mr. Wong, and Ms. Ho, and Mr. Cheung, you have traveled
along with some of your colleagues who are behind you, and I
want to recognize them as well, have traveled a long way at a
very critical time in Hong Kong. And you've come here to build
international support for Hong Kong. And I think it would be
important for the record for you to say why it is so important
that the international community and the United States support
your effort, why that is critical to success and what you are
doing.
And I also would like to get everybody's response to this.
And that is, you know, I have to be honest with you, I have
not--I've been somewhat disappointed in the current
administration's--our administration's response to what is
happening in Hong Kong. I think it should be much more
forceful. I would appreciate your comments on advice that you
would give the Trump Administration on what they should be
saying when dealing with the Chinese government.
Why don't we begin with Dr. Garrett, because we have been
going--we will end with Mr. Wong.
Mr. Garrett. Speaking to what advice we could give the
Trump Administration, I would say that U.S. responses have to
be resolute, to use the Hong Kong term. If they're not hard,
and if they're not unwavering, you will not get any respect
from Xi Jinping's Communist Party. They will exploit it.
The strong-man aesthetic is what rules Beijing right now.
And even in Hong Kong and Tamar. So this dealmaking doesn't
really mean much to them because whatever deal they make
they're going to subvert. So it is like with the rule of law,
just like what universal suffrage, just like what defense means
in the Hong Kong Basic Law. It means something different. We
call it Party-speak. And I think the administration has to be
aware of this Party-speak and understand it.
Second, as others have alluded to on both sides of the
Pacific, this is the first ideological confrontation of the new
Cold War. Whether or not you agree it's a cold war or not, the
discussions have been out there, but it's perceived by both
Beijing and people in D.C. to be an ideological confrontation.
The witnesses here, the people in this room, are looking to
save Hong Kong's autonomy, to save the two systems. Well, in
Beijing, and some places in Hong Kong, they are looking to
weaponize the two systems against the U.S. So this is not just
an issue of getting a good trade deal from China. It's an issue
much broader than that.
The weaponization of ``one country, two systems''--or the
two systems specifically, is looking at how China can use Hong
Kong's advantages, such as U.S. customs treatment of it, to
exploit the world. We've seen it with the recent scandal at the
United Nations where Patrick Ho was basically found guilty of
state capture at the United Nations to promote the Belt and
Road Initiative.
We've seen it earlier with China getting its first aircraft
carrier from Ukraine. That was done through a whole series of
deceptions and manipulations of Hong Kong's special status.
These types of things are still going on today. But we're
not looking at them, and this is one of the reasons why, in my
opinion, it's very important to treat state-owned enterprises
in Hong Kong and anybody affiliated with the CPPCC or the NPC
differently than how we would treat regular Hong Kongers. Thank
you.
Chairman McGovern. Thank you.
Ms. Hom.
Ms. Hom. I really think that's a scary thought to give
advice to Trump or the administration, but I think that any
actions by the administration have to hold true to the U.S.'s
core values. The U.S. has core values on human rights and
democracy and freedom.
And I totally echo, Hong Kong should not be made into a
bargaining chip in some deal that's on the table.
The ideological confrontation and the battle of the models
is actually much more than that. It's really China against the
world. It is not two models of equal legitimacy--because the
model that China is trying to attack and replace is the model
that the international community with Eleanor Roosevelt, in
fact, playing a very key role in the drafting of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights--it was a new world order that
emerged to say we will never again have what happened in Nazi
Germany. We will never again have mass detentions. We will
never have mass trampling on human dignity.
So to take down that human rights order, it's not about
models. The Chinese model is not co-equal. It is a Chinese
Party model. And I think we should start framing it as China
against the dominant world order. It is a dominant world order,
and it still exists, and they can't treat it as if we can now
just change a model.
And so I think on no consequences criticism . . . there
needs to be more consequences, but it is not totally accurate
to say no consequences. It's very important to recognize that
there are consequences already. When the U.S. speaks up, when
the Commission has this hearing, it's being watched, and it's
being listened to. I'm sure we are in living rooms in Beijing
right now of some high official watching this. But----
Chairman McGovern. You're live on C-SPAN.
Ms. Hom. I'm live on C-SPAN.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Hom. Hong Kong Yan, Gaa yau! (Hong Kongers, Add oil!)
is what I have to say to them.
So I think the consequences that we also should keep in
mind is the Party does want legitimacy. It can't stay in power
through naked military bullying and force. It can get a long
way with bullying, but it can't stay in power without
legitimacy. That's the whole international human rights
system--the U.S. holding on to core values. You don't have to
give that up. You say, no, we're not going to give you that
legitimacy. You're acting like a thug. We don't respect thugs.
So I think that's really important.
Chairman McGovern. Thank you.
Mr. Cheung.
Mr. Cheung. A quick response to your question is that China
is getting more wealthy and is getting mighty. China is picking
fights with all the other countries in the free world. China is
expanding their military in the South China Sea. They ignore
the international court's judgment and claim that they have the
ownership of the South China Sea, which severely threatens
security in the Asia-Pacific region.
They even picked a fight with the Canadians regarding the
Huawei incident. Who picks a fight with Canadians? Only China,
I think. This is unreasonable and that explains how assertive
China is.
And that's why I believe only the Americans--you are the
only superpower that can really try to contain China. That's
why we need support from the U.S. Government.
And regarding how China is doing a lot of silent invasion--
I use the word according to Professor Hamilton in Australia--
they are using a very silent invasion, using their economic
dominance trying to colonize and control many local societies
in other countries.
And many local societies in other countries are already
compromised, like some East Asian countries such as Sri Lanka.
They have to lease a military port to China for 99 years.
Apparently, this is new imperialism for me, and I believe only
the U.S. can contain China.
Also secondly, I believe, why the U.S. should be concerned
about Hong Kong is that you have many interests here and you
have to secure your interests. For example, a few months ago
when there was a U.S. sanction that Hong Kong should not allow
a ship which was carrying oil from Iran.
And the point is that the Hong Kong government, they
ignored the U.S. sanction and they allowed the ship from Iran
to come to Hong Kong and try to carry the oil back to Iran. And
apparently, this undermines your interests, and that is why
this is one of the most important reasons you should care about
Hong Kong and you should do something instead of just maybe
issuing a statement to support Hong Kong.
Thank you.
Chairman McGovern. Thank you.
Ms. Ho.
Ms. Ho. This historic fight in Hong Kong has only been
possible with the determination of the youngsters and of the
Hong Kong people. And I would really like to take this chance
to thank the members of this Commission and Chairman McGovern
and Cochairman Rubio for the continuous attention on Hong Kong
issues and, of course, to the push of this Act because this has
contributed in giving hope to the Hong Kong people. And the way
that it is telling the youngsters that their efforts are
actually making a change in the world. And that we are not in
an isolated struggle. It is a global fight. We are on the front
lines of this global fight to protect these universal values
that we all cherish.
So hopefully by passing this Act, we would be seeing
momentum in the international community where other countries
might join in and preserve these values and also monitor this
totalitarian regime that is actually destroying these values on
a daily basis.
So thank you very much.
Chairman McGovern. Thank you.
Mr. Wong.
Mr. Wong. With the sharp power expansion from China to
Canada and Australia, the Belt and Road Initiative implies how
China takes economic advantage in European countries, and how
China does not respect the international order even after
entering the WTO, after promises on the Joint Declaration, and
even after having negotiations with the U.S. on the trade deal.
We are all aware of the rising China model. It is just the
expansion of totalitarian rule without any respect for the
international order with liberal values. That implies and
explains why Hong Kong matters to the world, because Hong Kong
people stand at the forefront to confront authoritarian rule,
and Hong Kong people are aware that Hong Kong is the forefront,
and we will confront the authoritarian crackdown. If Hong Kong
falls, then maybe next the free world.
And I strongly realize now is the time for the U.S.
Congress to pass the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act.
And also, I hope the U.S. Government could reveal its foreign
policy to China to prioritize human rights issues, especially
now. We are not only suffering a political crisis, but a
humanitarian one as well.
The first time for me to be in prison was two years ago. I
remember I watched TV news on how Beijing authorities announced
no term-limit for presidents in the future, which just let me
realize that the one who locked me up in prison, which means
the authoritarian rule represented by President Xi, will be
Emperor Xi.
So that's the uphill and long-term battle. In 2047, no
matter whether it's me, or Sunny, or others, we will be age 50.
And I hope after 28 years Hong Kong can still be our hometown
with freedom and democracy.
And I think it is time to thank all the Congressmen and
Senators in the past few years, and even in the past few
decades, for really paying attention to the protest movement in
Hong Kong. We stand in solidarity. We stand as one. Hong
Kongers never walk alone.
Thank you.
Chairman McGovern. Thank you very much.
[Applause.]
Chairman McGovern. Let me thank the staff of the Commission
for all the work that they did in preparing this hearing. Let
me thank, again, the panelists. And to our friends from Hong
Kong, let me thank you for your courage and commitment.
I think what is prompting action here in the Congress is
your courage that we see unfolding on our television screens
and we read about in the newspapers.
I have to tell you, I think for everybody here, you have
been an inspiration. And as I said at the beginning of the
hearing, we are a diverse political group on this Commission.
But on this issue, we're in solidarity with you. We believe
that the future of Hong Kong ought to be determined by the
people of Hong Kong.
And, again, I can't thank you enough for being here. So
thank you.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:39 p.m. the hearing was concluded.]
?
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
=======================================================================
Prepared Statements
----------
Statement of Joshua Wong
Good morning, Chairman McGovern, Cochairman Rubio, and members of
the Commission. It's an honor to be invited back to Capitol Hill to
speak about developments in Hong Kong. You may recall that I last
traveled to Washington more than two years ago and testified before
this commission, in this same building, on May 3, 2017. At the time, I
warned about the probable disqualification of my friend Nathan Law, who
had been Asia's youngest democratically elected legislator and who is
in the audience this morning. I also warned about massive political
prosecution. Unfortunately, both materialized: Nathan lost his seat
that July, and we were both imprisoned in August for our roles in the
Umbrella Movement. Further legal troubles in relation to the 2014
protests prevented me from traveling abroad.
While I said then that Hong Kong's ``One Country, Two Systems'' was
becoming ``One Country, One-and-a-Half Systems,'' I don't think there
is any doubt among observers who have followed recent events that,
today, we are approaching dangerously close to ``One Country, One
System.'' The present state of affairs reveals Beijing's utter
inability to understand, let alone govern, a free society.
The ongoing demonstrations began on June 9 when one million Hong
Kongers took to the streets in protest of proposed legislation that
would've allowed criminal suspects to be extradited from Hong Kong to
China, where there are no guarantees of the rule of law. Still, before
the night had even ended, Chief Executive Carrie Lam announced the
bill's reading would resume in three days. Hong Kongers were bracing
for their last fight on June 12.
And then the unthinkable happened: Knowing that Beijing controlled
enough votes in the Legislative Council, protesters surrounded the
complex early in the morning, successfully preventing lawmakers from
convening. I was then serving my third jail sentence. For a moment, I
wondered why the news channel was replaying footage of the Umbrella
Movement, though it was not long before I realized Hong Kongers were
back. Lam suspended the bill on June 15, but fell short of fully
withdrawing it. A historic two million people demonstrated the
following day, equivalent to one in four out of our entire population.
I'm not aware of anything comparable to this level of discontent
against a government in modern history.
I was released exactly three months ago, on June 17, and have since
joined fellow Hong Kongers to protest in the most creative ways
possible. In addition to the bill's withdrawal, we demanded that Lam
retract the characterization of us as ``rioters,'' drop all political
charges, and establish an independent investigation into police
brutality. Some of us crowdfunded for newspaper advertisements ahead of
the G-20 summit in late June, calling for the world not to neglect Hong
Kong. Others broke into and occupied the Legislative Council complex on
July 1, the same day another 550,000 Hong Kongers protested peacefully.
Crowds continued to show up in large numbers every weekend, with
smaller rallies taking place almost daily across the territory. But the
government would not listen; instead of defusing the political crisis,
it dramatically empowered the police. The movement reached a turning
point on July 21. That night, thugs with suspected ties to organized
crime gathered in the Yuen Long train station and indiscriminately
attacked not just protesters returning home and reporters on the scene,
but even passersby. The police refused to show up despite repeated
emergency calls, plunging Hong Kong into a state of anarchy and mob
violence.
On August 5 alone, the day Hong Kongers participated in a general
strike, the police shot 800 canisters of tear gas to disperse the
masses. Compare that to only 87 fired in the entire Umbrella Movement
five years ago, and the police's excessive force today is clear. Their
increasingly liberal use of pepper spray, pepper balls, rubber bullets,
sponge bullets, beanbag rounds, and water cannons--almost all of which
are imported from Western democracies--are no less troubling. In light
of this, I applaud Chairman McGovern for introducing the PROTECT Hong
Kong Act last week in the House of Representatives. American companies
mustn't profit from the violent crackdown of freedom-loving Hong
Kongers.
Cochairman Rubio is also right for recently writing that ``Hong
Kong's special status'' under American law ``depends on the city being
treated as a separate customs area, on open international financial
connections, and on the Hong Kong dollar's peg to the U.S. dollar.''
Beijing shouldn't have it both ways, reaping all the economic benefits
of Hong Kong's standing in the world while eradicating our
sociopolitical identity. This is the most important reason why the Hong
Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act enjoys the broad support of Hong
Kong's civil society, a point which I want every member of Congress to
take note of.
Lam finally withdrew the bill earlier this month, but just as
protesters have long stopped calling for her resignation, this decision
is almost meaningless now. The movement is far from over, because it
has long moved beyond one bill or one person. Our fifth and most
important demand is genuine structural change in Hong Kong. Our
government's lack of representation lies at the heart of the matter.
As I speak, Hong Kong is standing at a critical juncture. The
stakes have never been higher. Authorities have all but stopped issuing
permits known as ``letters of no objection,'' so virtually every
demonstration is an ``illegal assembly.'' Moreover, we are confronted
by the huge Chinese military buildup just across the border in
Shenzhen. President Xi Jinping is unlikely to take bold action before
the upcoming 70th National Day in October, but no one can be sure
what's next. Sending in the tanks remains irrational, though not
impossible. Chinese interference in Macau, Taiwan, Tibet, and
especially Xinjiang, serves as a reminder that Beijing is prepared to
go far in pursuit of its grand imperial project.
I was once the face of Hong Kong's youth activism. In the present
leaderless movement, however, my sacrifices are minimal, compared to
those among us who have been laid off for protesting, who have been
injured but too afraid of even going to a hospital, or who have been
forced to take their own lives. Two have each lost an eye. The youngest
of the 1,400 arrested so far is only a 12-year-old schoolboy. I don't
know them, yet their pain is my pain. We belong to the same imagined
community, struggling for our right of self-determination so we can
build one brighter common future.
A baby born today will not even have celebrated his 28th birthday
by July 1, 2047, when Hong Kong's policy of ``50-year no change'' is
set to expire. That deadline is closer to us than it appears; there's
no return. Decades from now, when historians look back, I'm sure that
2019, much more so than 2014, will turn out to have been a watershed. I
hope, too, that historians will celebrate the United States Congress
for having stood on the side of Hong Kongers, the side of human rights
and democracy.
______
Statement of Denise Ho
Thank you, Chairman McGovern, Cochairman Rubio and members of this
Commission for holding this hearing and for having us here at this very
critical time for Hong Kong. We hope that our personal accounts will be
helpful in your deliberations on what the United States Congress and
American people can do to help the Hong Kong people in the face of the
erosion of our liberties and autonomy.
For more than 100 days now, the Hong Kong youth have led our city
into the historic fight of our times. It is a leaderless movement, with
widespread participation from people from all walks of life. It is a
fight for democracy, a fight for human rights, and most of all, a fight
for universal values and freedoms.
What started out as a million-people march against an extradition
bill morphed into a determined fight for fundamental political reform
in Hong Kong. Misjudgments and arrogance on behalf of Carrie Lam, the
Chief Executive Officer of Hong Kong, resulted in a total clampdown by
the Beijing government over Hong Kong affairs, at the same time that
the reluctance of both governments to fully implement ``One country,
Two systems'' in Hong Kong surfaced.
With Carrie Lam hiding behind the police force for months, refusing
to resolve political issues with sincerity, she has given the police
full authority to suppress the protests at all costs.
Since June, the Hong Kong police have shown excessive brutality in
their use of force, arresting and beating up peaceful protesters
heavily on uncountable occasions. More than 1,400 people have been
arrested to date, with even more (including journalists, first aiders
and social workers) severely injured by tear gas, rubber bullets, water
cannons, and the police's indiscriminate use of batons. On a personal
note, it has been extremely difficult to be away from home and to watch
the people safeguard the city from afar, especially in the past weekend
where we have seen police behavior getting out of control.
Sadly, it has become a common daily scene to see youngsters being
pinned to the ground, with bleeding head concussions and some even
knocked unconscious, but still refused medical care by the police.
Riot police and plainclothes officers have shown no restraint while
performing their duties. From the early weeks, they have deliberately
hidden their ID numbers, refused to show warrant cards even on request,
therefore making it impossible for citizens to verify the legitimacy of
plainclothes officers, nor to hold any police officer accountable for
their violations.
Last month, a university student in possession of ten laser
pointers was arrested and detained for 48 hours. A first aider was shot
in the eye by a beanbag round dispersed from above head level, risking
permanent loss of sight. On August 31st, police from the Special
Tactical Unit charged into Prince Edward MTR station, beating up
passengers randomly. Consequently, they shut down the station for 24
hours, refusing medical care for those who were injured, raising
suspicion of possible death in the station. They have recently charged
into secondary schoolyards, shopping malls and on buses, where young
people merely dressed in black clothing could be searched or even
arrested without justified reasons.
In short, in our Hong Kong today, being young is a crime. We are
now officially a police state, where people live in constant fear of
political repercussions.
In addition, on July 21st, in an infamous mob attack that occurred
in the Yuen Long MTR station, where white-shirt-clad thugs attacked
civilians indiscriminately, the police failed to arrive in a timely
manner, only making their appearance 39 minutes after the incident,
despite hundreds of emergency calls for help. Similar situations
occurred later in the protests, where police would give favorable
treatment to mobs and pro-Beijing supporters, helping them leave the
sites after having attacked protesters, showing clear and continuous
collusion between police and triad members.
On August 11th, police prevented pro bono lawyers from providing
legal assistance to arrested protesters in the Sun Uk Ling Holding
Center, violating the legal rights of 54 persons. There were also
claims from female protesters of sexual harassment inside the police
station, and of physical abuse on numerous occasions.
Since July, more than thirty ``no objection applications'' for
rallies and marches have been systematically denied, including the 1.7
million-people rally on August 18th, where protesters gathered and
marched peacefully despite the ban. According to Hong Kong Basic Law
and international standards, Hong Kong residents have the freedom of
assembly and demonstration, where peaceful public assembly is a
legitimate use of public space. By banning the assemblies, the Hong
Kong government is violating the people's right to peacefully protest.
With police violations accumulating by the day, Hong Kong people
have been demanding that an independent investigative council be
formed. The Chief Executive Carrie Lam has refused to do so, claiming
we have ``a well-established (IPCC), set up for exactly this purpose.''
This existing watchdog, the Independent Police Complaints Commission,
is in fact entirely appointed by the CE herself, has no legal power to
summon witnesses nor to force the police to provide sufficient
documents, and is therefore powerless in bringing justice to the
situation.
On its face, it all started with an extradition bill. But at the
core, it has always been about fundamental conflicts between these two
very different sets of values: on one side, the China model, which has
no respect for human rights and the rule of law and demands their
people's submission. And the other, a hybrid city that has enjoyed
these freedoms for most of its existence, with a deep attachment to
these universal values that the United States and other western
societies are also endeared to. Unfortunately, with the rise of the
present iron regime of Xi Jinping, ``One country, Two systems'' is
racing towards its death.
Hong Kong represents something very unique in the world--as a
crossroads that is strongly rooted in its own Asian cultures and yet
has come to be known for its values and rule of law, transparent
institutions, and freedom of information and expression. We represent
the hope that as nations develop, they will evolve towards these
universal values which protect individuals everywhere.
These protections are why over 1,500 multinational companies have
chosen to place their regional headquarters in Hong Kong, the biggest
proportion of these by country, from the United States. Hong Kong has
become one of the most globally interconnected, financially important
trading economies in the world, helping bring countries closer together
through finance and today, through the flow of data, goods, ideas,
culture and people.
However, this system is now under threat like never before.
Companies such as Hong Kong's major airline Cathay Pacific have
succumbed to political pressure, firing dozens of employees due to
their political stance, some only over a mere facebook post. Business
people are coerced into making political decisions. MTR Corporation,
our subway system, has deliberately shut down stations during rallies
and marches due to pressure from a state newspaper, resulting in more
than hundreds of arrests and unnecessary injuries.
As a singer and activist from Hong Kong, I have experienced the
suppression first hand. Ever since the Umbrella Movement in 2014, I
have been blacklisted by the communist government. My songs and my name
are censored on Chinese internet, and I have been ``called out''
several times by state newspapers. Pressured by the Chinese government,
sponsors have pulled out; even international brands have kept their
distance in fear of being associated with me. For the past five years,
and even more so recently, China tried to silence me with their
propaganda machines and smearing campaigns, making claims that are
completely false. Right now, I am facing threats from the communist
government and pro-Beijing supporters, and could face arrest and
prosecution at any time.
Not only have I faced increased difficulty in continuing my singing
career in China and Hong Kong, but the self-censorship has now spread
towards global institutions and cities. Recently, the National Gallery
of Victory in Melbourne, Australia denied a venue to a collaborative
event of Chinese artist Badiucao and myself, due to ``security
concerns.'' The 2019 gay pride event in Montreal, Canada banned Hong
Kong activists due to similar reasons. Celebrities from Hong Kong,
Taiwan, and China are all pressured into taking a political stance,
voicing their unanimous ``support'' for the Beijing government on
social media, and could be condemned for keeping their silence. Even
the songwriter of the new unofficial ``anthem'' for Hong Kong has opted
to stay anonymous, in fear of future reprisal.
Hongkongers are now living in constant fear and have unfortunately
lost most of our freedoms. For a city that has been infamously known as
politically indifferent, the younger generations have taken up the role
of safeguarding our home, standing up courageously to the corrupt
system in spite of increased and ruthless suppression. They have
awakened other Hong Kong people, and together we have taken the world
by surprise with our continued fight.
To the rest of the world, the United States is often a symbol of
freedom and democracy. The freedom Americans enjoy is something the
people of Hong Kong have long hoped for. Even though our languages and
cultures differ, what we have in common is the pursuit of justice,
freedom, and democracy.
Through the challenges of Hong Kong, the West is waking up to
China's insinuating power on a global scale. Hong Kong is connected to
the world in multiple ways (institutional, social, economic, personal),
but China is trying to isolate it to exert control. If Hong Kong falls,
it would easily become the springboard for the totalitarian regime of
China to push its rules and priorities overseas, utilizing its economic
power to conform others to their communist values, just as they have
done with Hong Kong in the past 22 years. The U.S. and its allies have
everything to fear if they wish to maintain a world that is free, open,
and civil.
I therefore urge the U.S. Congress to stand by Hong Kong, and most
of all, to pass the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. This is
not a plea for so-called foreign interference, nor for Hong Kong
independence. This is a plea for universal human rights. This is a plea
for democracy. This is a plea for the freedom to choose.
And lastly, may I quote Eleanor Roosevelt, your most beloved First
Lady: ``You gain strength, courage and confidence by every experience
in which you really stop to look fear in the face. You are able to say
to yourself, `I lived through this horror. I can take the next thing
that comes along.' ''
This is a global fight for the universal values that we all
cherish, and Hong Kong is on the very front lines of this fight. We
were once fearful of what might come with our silence, and for that, we
have now become fearless.
______
Statement of Sunny Cheung
My name is Sunny Cheung. I am the spokesperson of the Hong Kong
Higher Institutions International Affairs Delegation (HKIAD), a group
which represents over 100,000 students from all student unions in Hong
Kong. We aim to garner international support through raising awareness
and concerns with the international community. Our mission is to
mobilize support for the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of
2019. In August, we held a peaceful rally in central Hong Kong. Over
60,000 people attended to communicate their support for the Act.
Currently, we are deeply involved in organizing a large-scale class
boycott to put pressure on the government.
Background to the Current Protest Movement: The Umbrella Movement and
Hong Kong Identity
The 2014 Umbrella Movement was a watershed moment in Hong Kong's
story. Hundreds of thousands demonstrated and protested for democracy,
but the government granted us nothing but prosecution. We lost hope and
realized Beijing would not grant Hong Kong democracy as promised.
Under the ``one country, two systems'' blueprint, Hong Kong is
gradually becoming more and more like China. The grand plan and
ambition of the Greater Bay Area project is to completely erase our
identity as Hongkongers. Hong Kong could become just another city in
China. The ``two systems'' framework has not been able to defend us
from prosecution under harsh and unfair laws.
But the younger generation will not accept Beijing's cultural
invasion. Hong Kong has 177 years of history since 1842, for almost all
of which Hong Kong was separate from China and developed its own unique
culture and identity. Freedom and the rule of law are our core values.
Culturally, Hong Kong is different from China. We consider ourselves
Hongkongers rather than Chinese. A recent survey conducted by Hong Kong
University found that only 11% of respondents see themselves as pure
Chinese. We want so much to preserve our local language, Cantonese, and
also our traditional Chinese characters in written Chinese which are
different than the simplified version used in China.
Anti-extradition Protest and Five Demands
Hong Kong's extradition law protests began as a protest against
amendments to the city's extradition legislation which could have
marked the end of Hong Kong's autonomy. The Hong Kong government was
trying to change the legislation so that it would become legal to
extradite people to mainland China. China's courts have no
independence, and this move would have permanently compromised Hong
Kong's rule of law and autonomy which are protected under the Sino-
British Joint Declaration and the one country, two systems principle.
On June 9, 2019, 1 million people took to the streets to say ``no''
to the extradition law. Carrie Lam ignored our cry. Students have
played a major role, although this movement is leaderless. On June 12,
2019 hundreds of thousands of us occupied the streets. The police
committed appalling brutality, firing rubber bullets and tear gas at
peaceful protesters. Among them were lots of students, including high
school students. Carrie Lam was forced to ``suspend'' the bill. On June
16, 2019, 2 million people marched to ask for a full withdrawal of the
extradition bill, an independent inquiry into police brutality, and the
retraction of rioting charges.
The government said ``no'' to these reasonable demands, despite
calls from senior judges and business leaders. They could have defused
the situation then, but they chose not to. The scene was set for months
of protest. A dozen young people jumped to their deaths in protest.
Many students took to the streets, leaving behind a note of last wishes
as they prepared to die for Hong Kong in each protest. This is the
fight for freedom and democracy. We do it because we love our city.
The police force was instructed to stamp out the protests by force.
Instead of intimidating the brave people of Hong Kong, their actions
have strengthened our resolve.
The people of Hong Kong drew up five demands which have been at the
core of the protests since June. They are:
The complete withdrawal of the extradition bill from the
legislative process.
The retraction of the ``riot'' characterization.
The release and exoneration of arrested protesters.
An independent inquiry into the police brutality.
Universal suffrage for the city's leadership and the
parliament.
In September, Carrie Lam, the Chief Executive, finally agreed to
propose the withdrawal of the bill in the city's Legislative Council.
But this is too little, too late, particularly after months of police
violence.
Police Brutality
What is now driving the protests is the ongoing violent actions of
the police. Beijing has given the Hong Kong Police Force complete free
rein, and their actions have horrified the Hong Kong public. Their
actions include randomly firing tear gas at the general public and
journalists, firing tear gas inside train stations, shooting rubber
bullets to the head, as well as the mistreatment and torture of
detainees. This has led to a collapse of trust in the government and
the police force. Compromise will not be possible until the government
calls for an independent inquiry into police brutality.
There have been multiple horrifying events. The events of July 21,
2019 were a key turning point. White-shirted members of triad gangs
entered Yuen Long MTR station carrying wooden sticks and beat up
civilians, journalists, protesters returning home, and the lawmaker Lam
Cheuk-ting. Lam's arm was broken, and many were hospitalized, including
a number of journalists. The images were broadcast throughout Hong
Kong.
The police did not respond to emergency phone calls for the first
forty-five minutes and failed to stop the gang members or arrest anyone
that evening. Images appeared of members of the mob standing alongside
police officers earlier in the evening, holding the sticks they later
used to attack protesters. Police inaction has granted immunity to
these thugs who now routinely attack protesters and civilians. Another
awful evening was August 31, 2019, when the police indiscriminately
attacked civilians in the Prince Edward MTR station. One of the victims
was a representative of HKIAD. On that traumatic and horrifying night,
he was wearing a suit and passing through the Prince Edward train
station. Yet, with the blockade created by the police, countless
innocent civilians were trapped and the press was ordered to leave the
scene without justification. He was outflanked on an escalator
alongside a group of innocent civilians, who were just trying to get
safe passage out of the station, which had become a hunting ground for
the police. Then the passengers were insulted, arrested, struck, and
stepped on by the police with batons and shields. They arrested them
despite knowing they were innocent. Besides, we student union members
frequently received threatening letters targeting us and our family,
saying we would soon be killed. The threats against Student Union
leaders are real and common. The Chair of the Hong Kong University
Students' Union has resigned and fled the city after he was beaten
violently. There is a collapse of trust in the government and the
police force. Compromise will not be possible until the government
calls an independent inquiry into police brutality.
Why Does Hong Kong Matter? Asia's Prominent World City Is Dying
Hong Kong's story matters. Hong Kong is one of the world's top
international financial centers and one of Asia's few liberal cities.
Our people care about freedom and democracy. We disprove the lie that
Asian cities cannot have democratic values.
This is particularly true for young people. We will not compromise
our dignity, freedom, and democracy for superficial prosperity. How we
see our future and the meaning of life is different from the older
generation. The older generation--especially those who are now
ministers in the government and leaders of businesses--see material
gain as the ultimate goal and success in life. But in Hong Kong,
prosperity is only for the few. Twenty-two years after the change-over
of sovereignty, we have to wake up to the fact that we cannot
compromise our dignity and freedom for the sake of stability and
prosperity for the rich and those who are in power.
Over 1 million Hongkongers are living below the poverty line.
Inequality in Hong Kong is at extreme levels for a developed country
and getting worse. An Oxfam report last year found that the median
monthly income of the top decile of the population was 44 times higher
than the lowest decile in 2016, up from 34 times in 2006. Hong Kong
people live in some of the smallest apartments in the world because the
government controls the supply of land and releases it slowly, in the
interests of developers rather than the population.
Our system is corrupt because we do not have democracy as promised
in the Basic Law. We cannot vote for our leader, and the Legislative
Council is rigged by a functional constituency system, which means that
big businesses and vested interests decide who represents 50% of the
seats. Successive Chief Executives have done dirty backroom deals with
property tycoons to keep home prices artificially high. Democracy is
and will be one of our core demands for this reason.
Hong Kong Is on the Front Line of the Battle for Freedom and Against an
Authoritarian China
Since joining the World Trade Organization, China has been
utilizing the benefits of free trade to consolidate its authoritarian
governance. The rise of an authoritarian China puts liberal democratic
values in danger.
Domestically, the Communist Party suppresses activists in Hong Kong
and mainland China. Nowhere is this more clearly seen than in Xinjiang,
where the Chinese authorities have built concentration camps and
subject ethnic minorities to mass surveillance, torture, killings, and
arbitrary arrests. On this subject, the UN decried China as a shameful
country last year.
Globally, under China's money diplomacy tactic, many small
countries have already been compromised and lost their control over the
local society. Sri Lanka has to lease a strategic port to China for 99
years. Scholars describe this phenomenon as economic colonialism and
the new imperialism. It is crystal clear that China is using its
economic dominance to penetrate foreign societies, business sectors,
political parties, and universities to gather intelligence and thereby
undermine their autonomy. Fortunately, several countries have woken up
to this reality and finally realize how China intends to negatively
impact the world. One year ago, Canada started to shut down the
Confucius Institutes, stopping China from preaching their propaganda to
affect youth in Canada. Australia's parliament also ratified amendments
to their national security law to prohibit foreign interference,
targeting China, apparently.
Over the past few months, Hong Kong's people have demonstrated to
the world that we believe in democracy and liberty, even though we face
a harsh crackdown from the Chinese Communist Party regime. Hong Kong is
an international city. China has benefited from its special customs
status; 70% of foreign investment in China comes from Hong Kong. China
utilizes Hong Kong to do illegal trading with North Korea and Iran and
even purchases weapons from European countries which should have a
weapons embargo on China. Therefore, international powers also have a
say in the city's future. Hong Kong is on the front line of the battle
against authoritarianism. It is vital that the United States work with
like-minded countries to ensure that the rights and freedoms of Hong
Kong's people are protected.
Our Call: Pass the Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019
This is why we are calling for the Hong Kong Human Rights and
Democracy Act to be passed. The legislation provides critical
strengthening to the Hong Kong Policy Act, which will act to place the
rights and freedoms of Hong Kong's people at the heart of U.S.-Hong
Kong policy. Also, we hope the U.S. Government can protect Hong Kong
people who unfortunately have criminal records due to participation in
protests in Hong Kong. We hope the U.S. Government can still grant
visas to them through a regular routine if they intend to study or work
in the States. The Hong Kong government intentionally prosecutes
protesters with an ancient and colonial law which is the Public Order
Ordinance. With this law, Hong Kong's people can easily be found guilty
even if they do not participate in a protest. We sincerely ask for you
all to ensure that people who have taken part in protests are not
barred from receiving visas to the U.S.
Lastly, we hope the U.S. Government can keep up the good work in
monitoring the rise of an authoritarian China. The invasive economic
dominance, reprehensible communist ideology, and deteriorating human
rights situation of China should deeply concern the U.S. Government.
Fifty years ago, U.S. President Truman famously gave a speech, which is
the Truman Doctrine. He warned America and the world that the danger of
Communism was real. He argued that it was the responsibility of the
U.S. to support the free world. Fifty years later, Communist China
poses a threat to international peace and the world liberal system.
Hong Kong is now at the front line in the battle against
totalitarianism. We never hesitate to take every step, with the last
inch of our effort, to fight for freedom. The grandest of our ideals is
an unfolding promise since the last world war that each human being
deserves a chance to live with dignity and to live in liberty. Hong
Kong is at a critical moment in its history. We are calling for the
U.S. to stand with us in our fight for freedom, democracy, and dignity.
Thank you.
______
Statement of Daniel Garrett
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Statement of Sharon Hom
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Statement of Hon. James P. McGovern
Good morning and welcome to today's hearing on ``Hong Kong's Summer
of Discontent and U.S. Policy Reponses.''
This is the second China Commission hearing this year on the
situation in Hong Kong. During our May hearing, the commission heard
compelling testimony from Hong Kong pro-democracy advocates including
Martin Lee and Nathan Law, who expressed serious concerns about the
extradition bill that was quickly moving towards becoming law at that
time. That legislation would have put anyone in Hong Kong--including
U.S. citizens--at risk of extradition to mainland China, where lack of
due process and custodial abuses have been well documented.
Over the last 16 weeks, millions of people from all walks of life
in Hong Kong have taken to the streets in an unprecedented and
sustained show of unity. The protesters have inspired the world and
have risked their lives, their health, their jobs, and their education
to fight for the future of Hong Kong. Thank you for your courage and
bravery. We stand in solidarity with you.
As protests continued throughout the summer, Hong Kong police used
excessive and unnecessary force to target those engaged in peaceful
demonstrations. The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights has called
for an investigation. The U.K. has suspended export licenses for the
sale of tear gas and crowd-control equipment.
In the House of Representatives, Congressman Chris Smith and I have
introduced H.R. 4270, the ``PROTECT Hong Kong Act'' that would prohibit
U.S. exports of police equipment to Hong Kong. U.S. companies should
not be selling equipment used to violently crack down on pro-democracy
protesters. I hope Congress will pass this legislation as soon as
possible.
Although consideration of the extradition bill has been suspended,
the people of Hong Kong are calling for greater accountability and
democratic participation. It's my understanding that the Hong Kong
protesters have outlined ``Five Demands'' of Hong Kong and Chinese
authorities.
I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses what those demands
are specifically; what progress has been made by the Chinese and Hong
Kong governments on achieving them; what remains to be done; and how we
in Congress and the international community might be helpful.
The ``one country, two systems'' framework was enshrined in the
1984 Sino-British Declaration and Hong Kong's Basic Law. This is an
international treaty, signed by the Chinese government, to allow Hong
Kong a ``high degree of autonomy'' with the ``ultimate aim'' of
electing its Chief Executive and Legislative Council members by
universal suffrage.
The 2014 ``Umbrella Movement'' protests were sparked by the Chinese
government reneging on its commitments to make Hong Kong more
democratic. It is the continuing erosion of Hong Kong's autonomy and
rule of law that fuel the protests in Hong Kong today.
Over the last five years, the Chinese government has prioritized
control over Hong Kong by stifling free expression and restricting the
space for democratic participation. We have seen the prosecution and
sentencing of pro-democracy leaders, the disqualification and removal
of pro-democracy legislators, and the introduction of a new national
anthem bill that would restrict free expression.
Anson Chan, the former Hong Kong Chief Secretary and Legislative
Council member, recently offered this insight: ``If only Beijing would
understand what makes Hong Kong tick, what are the values we hold dear,
then they can use that energy to benefit both China and Hong Kong.
Instead, they have this mentality of control.''
While the protests were sparked by concerns about the extradition
bill, the heart of the discontent is that Hong Kong's political leaders
do not represent and are not accountable to the people. Instead, Hong
Kong's leaders are beholden to the Chinese government. Millions of
people would not have to protest in the streets if they could freely
choose their political leaders.
I hope the Chinese government would understand that stability and
prosperity can be achieved if Hong Kong's autonomy is respected and if
the Chief Executive and Legislative Council members were elected
without Chinese influence over candidate selection.
In light of the continuing erosion of Hong Kong's autonomy and the
recent violence against peaceful protesters, I believe it is time for
the United States to reconsider its policies toward Hong Kong. U.S.-
Hong Kong relations are governed by the U.S.-Hong Kong Policy Act of
1992 that commits the United States to treating Hong Kong as a separate
customs territory from the rest of China, so long as Hong Kong remains
``sufficiently autonomous.''
I am proud to support H.R. 3289, the ``Hong Kong Human Rights and
Democracy Act,'' sponsored by Senator Rubio and Congressman Smith. The
legislation would require the Secretary of State to certify on an
annual basis that Hong Kong is ``sufficiently autonomous'' to justify
special economic, financial, and trade treatment different from
mainland China under U.S. law.
It is time we put the Chinese government on annual notice that
further erosion of autonomy or a crackdown in Hong Kong will cause the
city, and by extension mainland China, to lose its special economic and
trade arrangement with the U.S.
Over the years, Hong Kong has prospered and become the financial
center of Asia because of its strong commitment to the rule of law,
good governance, human rights, and an open economic system. The erosion
of this unique system threatens not only the people who attempt to
speak out, but the economic vitality of the city itself.
To be clear, we stand together with the people of Hong Kong, and
indeed all the people of China, when we express our concerns about the
human rights violations of the Hong Kong and Chinese governments. Our
focus today is doing right by the people of Hong Kong as they seek a
democratic future that protects Hong Kong's autonomy and rule of law.
______
Statement of Hon. Marco Rubio
I want to thank all of our witnesses, especially those who are on
the front lines and have even been jailed multiple times, and we'll
hear from them today about the things that have been done against them
and your commitment to freedom and democracy. It is inspiring. It
really is inspiring for those of us who live in this republic. It
reminds us of why so many of us serve here and what we seek to preserve
around the world, and that's why we want to stand with you. Your fight,
and the fight of your fellow Hong Kongers, is the fight of every human
who yearns for liberty and dignity, and who demands that their
fundamental rights be respected and upheld. Let me say at the outset to
the people of Hong Kong: We stand with you. And by we, I mean that this
is a bicameral, bipartisan commitment, as you will see today and have
seen in the past few days, on these efforts, across both political
parties and every major figure. Not only that, but many Americans stand
with you in your fight to keep your long-cherished freedoms.
It was only a few months ago, in May, that we held a hearing on
Hong Kong. It was titled ``Hong Kong's Future in the Balance: Eroding
Autonomy and Challenges to Human Rights.'' At that hearing, and even
before, it was highlighted on the fact that the Chinese Communist Party
has been eroding Hong Kong's autonomy and freedoms guaranteed by the
Joint Declaration and by the Basic Law. The May hearing discussed the
extradition bill, that, had it passed, would have exposed everyone in
Hong Kong--and that includes, by the way, 80,000 Americans who reside
there--to the justice system or the so-called justice system of the
Chinese Communist Party. The same justice system that routinely
tortures those in its custody, that denies critically needed medical
care, that arrests lawyers for serving their clients, and that places
the desires of the Communist Party above every and any demand for
justice. The proposed bill exposed the very real and increasing threat
to Hong Kong's autonomy. But few of us could have anticipated the
events that would follow.
Since June, the people of Hong Kong have bravely taken to the
streets for 15 straight weeks in more than 400 separate demonstrations
involving more than 8 million people of every age and every background.
Recently, there have been very credible reports that have emerged of
the police's brutal treatment of demonstrators while in their custody.
This weekend, for example, we saw images of the police holding down a
protester whose head was bleeding, and spraying pepper spray into the
wound, which is an act of total cruelty. We watched the police throw
tear gas grenades at journalists, many of whom were well far away from
the demonstrators. Since the 21st of July, pro-Beijing thugs--thugs
associated with organized crime and the party's United Front
activities--have violently confronted demonstrators and journalists and
innocent passersby. And the police just looked on, looked the other
way, and in some cases, even cooperated. And while detained
demonstrators have been beaten, or their faces smashed into the
concrete, journalists have photographed these same thugs in
``detention,'' smoking and playing on their cell phones after attacking
journalists and demonstrators.
Although Hong Kong's Chief Executive may have promised to withdraw
the extradition bill when the Legislative Council reconvenes in
October, the government's violent response to the demonstrations
demands accountability. And yet, Lam and the Hong Kong government
refuse to press for any accountability for the violence that was
committed and continues to be committed by Hong Kong's security forces
against peaceful protesters. The Chief Executive did not listen to the
outcry against the bill in Hong Kong since its introduction, but rather
tried to ram it through the legislature.
So what's at stake? The Hong Kong government's stubbornness in the
face of public outcry has launched one of the greatest people power
movements we have witnessed in recent memory. The actions of the
government and of the people demonstrate that there are two Hong Kongs.
The Hong Kong of the government, totally leveraged by the Chinese
government, has proven that it's not committed to a free and autonomous
future for Hong Kong, nor is it one of the rule of law or of justice.
The other Hong Kong, the real one, is the one of its people--the
students and youth activists, artists, journalists, doctors and nurses,
lawyers, accountants, business people--from every walk of life, the
city's people of all ages who have shown us a Hong Kong with a vibrant
civic life prepared to stand up for its own autonomy, democracy, and
liberty. It is clear that these two very different Hong Kongs are
colliding, and therefore the city is at a crossroads. The fact of the
matter is that maintaining autonomy is critical to U.S. interests, and
it also has real implications for the rest of the world. Hong Kong's
status as an international trade and investment hub is threatened as
long as the long-cherished freedoms of the Hong Kong people are being
threatened--threatened, by the way, not by us but by the Communist
Party of China.
So it is my belief that it's long overdue for the United States and
the free world to respond. I hope we quickly pass the Hong Kong Human
Rights and Democracy Act, which I hope will be heard next week in
committee, so that we can provide this and future administrations with
updated tools to respond robustly and flexibly to the Chinese Communist
Party and its proxies who are undermining Hong Kong's autonomy. The
U.S. Government and other democracies need to hold Chinese and Hong
Kong officials accountable for their failure to uphold their
commitments. The United States and other nations have options precisely
because Beijing benefits from Hong Kong's special status--a special
status which has made Hong Kong an international financial center built
on the promises that China made to the world with regard to Hong Kong,
which they seek to break. China's leaders must either respect Hong
Kong's autonomy or know that their escalating aggression will lead them
to face real consequences--not just from the United States but from the
free world. And I issue one final warning in this regard: I anticipate
fully that they'll continue their work to turn the system of government
in Hong Kong into something resembling the one that exists in Macao--
one that allows them to intervene in the legal system as they wish.
So we're here today to examine what has happened and look forward
to Hong Kong's future. There are many challenges in our relationship
with China, but Hong Kong must remain a priority. Hong Kong is not a
Chinese internal affair, and the world has a responsibility to help the
people of Hong Kong move towards a future that protects their
individual freedoms and provides for civic well-being. I look forward
to hearing your views in today's discussion. I thank you for your
courage and commitment.
______
Statement of Hon. Christopher Smith
The people of Hong Kong have shown us this summer--in often
creative and inspiring ways--that a free people will not accept the
boot of repression without protest. The protests roiling the streets of
Hong Kong for the past three months are a daily reminder of the stark
differences between free and authoritarian societies.
I believe that the Hong Kong people have done the world a great
service. Before a global television audience, they have exposed
Beijing's plans to erode the freedoms guaranteed to Hong Kong by
international treaty--in the process laying bare the perniciously
repressive tactics used to keep the Chinese Communist Party in power.
And have no doubt about it, the Chinese Communist government is
both uniquely repressive and incredibly paranoid about maintaining its
grip on power. There are now over a million Uyghurs interned in
Orwellian political education camps. Human rights lawyers have
disappeared and been horribly tortured in detention. Christians,
Tibetans, labor activists, and journalists face unacceptable abuses and
the most intrusive system of surveillance operating in the world today.
Why would anyone want their political fate determined by Beijing? If
given a choice, no one would.
As inspiring as the protests have been, they have also raised
serious concerns about the actions of the Hong Kong and Chinese
Communist governments. The violence and use of force perpetrated
against the protesters by thugs and police is extremely alarming.
Representative McGovern and I were the first members of Congress to
call on the Trump Administration to suspend the sale of tear gas,
rubber bullets, pepper spray and other crowd-control equipment to the
Hong Kong Police. I join now in Representative McGovern's call to
quickly pass the PROTECT Hong Kong Act, which would end sales of such
equipment to the Hong Kong Police.
Also alarming are the repeated and irresponsible threats of
intervention made by Chinese officials, particularly so given that this
year marks the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen massacre.
The Hong Kong and Chinese Communist governments are alone
responsible for the grievances expressed by the protesters and they
alone can peacefully address their demands for universal suffrage and
investigation of police tactics. Blaming the U.S. Government--and this
Congress--for the protests is cowardly propaganda and not befitting a
nation with aspirations of global leadership.
Beijing's long-term plan is to undermine Hong Kong's autonomy and
U.S. interests there. It is time that U.S. policy actively counters
this plan. The first step is to pass the Hong Kong Human Rights and
Democracy Act.
Five years ago, in the midst of the Umbrella Movement, I introduced
the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act with my then-CECC Cochair
Senator Sherrod Brown. The bill allows for more flexible and robust
U.S. responses to the steady erosion of Hong Kong's autonomy and human
rights.
Over the years, Senator Rubio and I upgraded the bill to reflect
the kidnapping of booksellers, the disqualification of elected
lawmakers, and the political prosecutions of Joshua Wong, Nathan Law,
Benny Tai and others. However, every time we pushed for passage there
was opposition from diplomats, experts, committee chairs, and the
American Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong.
We were told not to upset the status quo. We were told our bill
would cost U.S. businesses. We were told that upgrading U.S. policy
would undermine diplomatic efforts to work with Beijing and its hand-
selected political leaders in Hong Kong. It is the same bad advice that
we have been hearing on China since the 1990s. It is clear by now that
China experts have failed the American people and their advice helped
gut parts of our economy. Listening to their advice this time will fail
the people of Hong Kong as well.
It is time to pass this legislation in Congress. We have wide
agreement for passage of this bipartisan and bicameral legislation.
Specifically, the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act would:
Direct the Secretary of State to certify to Congress
annually whether Hong Kong continues to deserve special treatment under
U.S. law different from mainland China in such matters as trade,
customs, sanctions enforcement, law enforcement cooperation, and
protection of human rights and the rule of law.
Direct the State Department not to deny entry visas based
on the applicant's arrest or detention for participating in nonviolent
protest activities in Hong Kong.
Require an annual report from the Commerce Department on
whether the Hong Kong government adequately enforces U.S. export
controls and sanctions laws.
Require the Secretary of State to submit a strategy to
Congress to protect U.S. citizens and businesses in Hong Kong from the
erosion of autonomy and the rule of law because of actions taken by the
Chinese Communist government.
Require the President to identify and sanction persons in
Hong Kong or in mainland China responsible for the erosion of Hong
Kong's autonomy and serious abuses of human rights.
I've heard it said that the business of Hong Kong is business, but
it is clear to me now that the business of Hong Kong is freedom. It is
freedom that undergirds the city's prosperity and its unique vitality.
The U.S. and the international community have a clear interest in
protecting the rights and rule of law promised to the Hong Kong people.
I stand united with the people of Hong Kong and will not be silent
in the face of threats to their guaranteed liberties and way of life.
The U.S. and the international community also cannot be silent. The
whole world has a stake in a peaceful and just resolution in Hong Kong
and the survival of the ``one country, two systems'' model.
Witness Biographies
----------
Joshua Wong, Secretary-General of Demosisto, pro-democracy
activist, and Umbrella Movement leader
Joshua Wong is a pro-democracy activist and the secretary-general
of Demosisto. At the age of 15, as the convenor of Scholarism in 2012,
he organized protests against the government's plan to introduce
patriotic education in Hong Kong. Subsequently, he rose to prominence
as a core leader of the 2014 Umbrella Movement. He was nominated by
Time as Person of the Year in 2014, listed as one of the ``world's
greatest leaders'' by Fortune magazine in 2015, and nominated by
members of the U.S. Congress for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2017. He was
also one of Hong Kong's first three political prisoners since 1997,
sentenced in 2018 with Nathan Law and Alex Chow for leadership roles in
the Umbrella Movement. Most recently, Wong was arrested in August 2019
for his role in a peaceful protest outside police headquarters during
the anti-extradition bill movement.
Denise Ho, pro-democracy activist and award-winning Cantopop singer
and actress
Denise Ho is a pro-democracy and LGBTQ rights activist and an
award-winning Hong Kong-based singer, producer, and actress with 12
studio albums and many film credits to her name. Ho is a prominent
supporter of the anti-extradition bill protests in Hong Kong and a
leading figure in Hong Kong's pro-democracy movement. She was arrested
during the 2014 Umbrella Movement for taking part in non-violent
protests and named as one of BBC's ``100 Women'' in 2016. The Chinese
government has banned her from performing in China. Ho has been invited
to speak at the Oslo Freedom Forum in Norway, the Global Summit in the
United States, and Antidote in Australia. In July 2019, Ho addressed
the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on Hong Kong, during which she
was repeatedly interrupted by the Chinese delegation.
Sunny Cheung, spokesperson for the Hong Kong Higher Institutions
International Affairs Delegation (HKIAD) and student at the University
of Hong Kong
Sunny Cheung is a spokesperson for the Hong Kong Higher
Institutions International Affairs Delegation (HKIAD) and an activist
from the student union of the University of Hong Kong. Established in
July 2019, HKIAD includes all student unions of universities in Hong
Kong in the primary mission of raising global awareness and support for
Hong Kong's anti-extradition bill protesters and the pro-democracy
movement. Cheung has participated in and organized exchange events and
conferences in Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, the United States, and
the United Nations. He recently gave a speech in the U.K. House of
Commons and met parliamentarians from Taiwan, Australia, Germany, and
the United Kingdom to advocate for Hong Kong's struggle against Chinese
authoritarian rule.
Sharon Hom, Executive Director of Human Rights in China and
professor of law emerita at City University of New York School of Law
Sharon K. Hom is the executive director of Human Rights in China
(HRIC), where she leads its international advocacy and strategic policy
engagement with NGOs, governments, and multi-stakeholder initiatives.
HRIC has covered human rights and democracy developments in Hong Kong
extensively, including the 2014 Umbrella Movement. Hom has presented at
numerous hearings on a wide range of human rights issues before key
European, U.S., and international policymakers. Hom is a professor of
law emerita at the City University of New York School of Law and has
taught law for 18 years, including training judges, lawyers, and law
teachers at eight law schools in China. She also teaches human rights
seminars at New York University School of Law and the University of
Hong Kong Faculty of Law. In 2007, she was named by the Wall Street
Journal as one of the ``50 Women to Watch.''
Daniel Garrett, Ph.D., political scientist and author of ``Counter-
Hegemonic Resistance in China's Hong Kong: Visualizing Protest in the
City'' (2014)
Daniel Garrett, Ph.D., is an author, photographer and political
scientist focusing on Chinese security politics and securitization of
Hong Kong. Since 2011 he has documented over 600 demonstrations,
marches, and rallies and several elections in Hong Kong--including,
most recently, the anti-extradition bill demonstrations. Garrett is a
doctoral graduate of City University of Hong Kong with approximately 20
years of engagement with Hong Kong and has completed his dissertation
on ``One Country, Two Systems'' under China's national security
framework. His first book, ``Counter-Hegemonic Resistance in China's
Hong Kong: Visualizing Protest in the City'' (2014), examined Hong
Kong's protest culture. Prior to academia, Garrett was a career
national security professional providing strategic counterintelligence
threat analysis and served at the Defense Intelligence Agency, National
Security Agency, and in the United States Air Force.