UPDATED: Results of Sunday's Hong Kong, Chile elections

Q. When do the Chinese have their best elections? A. Just before bleakfast... 

Well, there's no election in "mainland China" today, but there is a sham election in the Chinese "Special Administrative Region" of Hong Kong. To prove that they have nothing to learn from American Democrats, the Chinese Communists (CPC), who control the central government as well as those of the SARs, are inviting patriotic citizens (only) to vote today in the first election since Beijing amended the laws to reduce the number of directly elected lawmakers and vet candidates to ensure that only those loyal to China can run.

Only 20 of the 90 seats in the Legislative Council (LegCo) are up for grabs. "Independent" candidates approved by the government are in tough against official CPC candidates. No matter who wins, the Communists will remain firmly in control. There will be no repeats of the pro-democracy protests and demonstrations that rocked Hong Kong in 2014 and 2019, but were crushed by security forces. 

A sweeping "national security law" was quickly imposed, effectively silencing most of the city's opposition activists and led others to flee abroad. Night has already fallen in Hong Kong, and officials are slowly counting the handful of votes that were cast. Said one voter, "Although there is a chance to vote for pro-establishment and democracy candidates, there are few democratic choices, so Hong Kong people do not feel enthusiastic when it comes to voting." 

Carrie Lam, head of the Hong Kong government, attributed the low voter turnout to general satisfaction about the way the city is being run under the progressive leadership of the Communist Party and the much beloved Chairman Xi Jinping. 

Voters in Hong Kong had a simple choice. They could vote Communist... or Else. Chilean voters, by contrast, are today offered a clear choice between Hard Right and Hard Left, in a runoff between two presidential candidates offering starkly contrasting visions for the future.

In the country’s most divisive elections since it returned to democracy in 1990, leftie Gabriel Boric, a tattooed former student protest leader, has pledged to empower women and indigenous people and  create "a fairer Chile". He will build back better, he says, by increasing spending, which will be paid for by raising taxes on the rich. Sound familiar?

His conservative opponent José Antonio Kast is pro-life and against "gay marriage". A staunch defender of former president Augusto Pinochet, Sr Kast has promised to dig ditches along the country's northern border to slow the invasion of illegal migrants. 

After years of "liberal democratic" rule, the sharp choice has resurfaced deep divisions in one of Latin America's most stable democracies. Although Sr Boric is not a card-carrying Commie, he is at the head of a coalition which includes Communists, and conservative Chileans are convinced that his "progressivism" would push Chile into a Venezuelan-style economic tailspin. 

Both candidates claim that it is their rival who instils fear among voters. Sr Kast frequently rails against the influence of the "gay lobby". At his final campaign rally on Thursday, he said, "This Sunday we are going to say 'no' to intolerant people! We will defeat fear… We will win by a wide margin because this is what I have been hearing the length of Chile!"

And now the results. May I have the envelopes please?

Sr Kast's prediction was wrong. The people of Chile, apparently having forgotten the Allende years, voted for the crypto-Commie, Gabriel Boric, 56% to 44%. Let's see if they suffer "buyer's remorse" quicker than the Americans who voted for Sleepy Joe.

[Did anyone vote for President Brandon? I haven't met anyone lately who admits to having done so. Ed.]

In Hong Kong, to the surprise of no-one, pro-Beijing (read: Communist) candidates romped to victory, virtually unopposed, as the city saw its lowest-ever voter turnout. It was the first LegCo election since China made sweeping and controversial changes to the city's electoral system. Officials argue the changes were needed to ensure stability, but critics say they weakened democracy. 

On Monday, Beijing also unveiled a statement outlining "democracy with Hong Kong characteristics". In a white paper released hours after election results were announced, China said Hong Kong was now entering a new stage of "restored order" as a result of the Beijing-introduced changes.

In the Excited States of America, the Democrats are set to propose an amendment to change the name of H.R.1/S.1, presently stalled in the Senate, from the "For the People Act" to the "Democracy with Democratic Characteristics Act". Stay tuned.

Hong Kong nut-cutting time fast approaching

Looks like the crunch is coming for the pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong. Agent 78 has been following the news closely and reports that, as of this morning (Walt's time) only 100 or so anti-government protesters remain holed up at Hong Kong Polytechnic University, as a police siege of the campus entered its third day.

Carrie Lam, the puppet CEO chosen by the Beijing government, said 600 people, including 200 minors, had left the campus. The police siege, oddly, is intended to prevent the protesters from leaving, so they can be arrested and face "justice", Communist-style. Police have surrounded the university and are arresting anyone who leaves.

On Monday, groups of protesters made several attempts to escape, including sliding down hoses to waiting motorcycles, but it wasn’t clear if they managed to evade arrest. Ms Lam told AP that 400 of the 600 who left were detailed, but that those under 18 were not be immediately arrested but could face charges later. "We will use whatever means to continue to persuade and arrange for these remaining protesters to leave the campus as soon as possible," she said, "so that this whole operation could end in a peaceful manner."

Hong Kong police also announced that they will be treating the death of a man hit by a brick thrown by protesters late on Thursday as murder. Last Friday, pro-democracy protesters blocked a road near the Hong Kong Polytechnic campus, but were dispersed by police forces led by Inspector Charles Chan, using tear gas and water cannons. The president of the university said on Friday that he would call on the "assistance of non-students" if necessary. Sure enough, troops of the so-called People's Liberation Army (read: Chinese regular army) came to clear up the debris and open the road. The message was clear. Today they came with brooms. Tomorrow they will be back with something else.

Here in the decadent imperialist West, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo finally opened his official mouth to state the American non-position on the pro-democracy protests. He called on police and protesters to refrain from violence. Well, he used a few more words than that, without adding much more substance.

On Monday, Mr Pompeo called for all sides to exercise restraint in the escalating Hong Kong conflict, and said the territory's government should start an independent investigation into "incidents" during the pro-democracy protests, now entering their seventh month. That inquiry presumably would include reviewing accusations of police misconduct, one of the key demands of the protesters.

Speaking at a presser in Foggy Bottom, Secretary Pompeo said, the Hong Kong government bears primary responsibility for the conflict, which he said could not be resolved by law enforcement alone. He called for the Hong Kong government to "take clear steps to address public concerns," and stressed that Carrie Lam, the territory's chief executive, should "promote accountability" by putting in place an independent investigation.

What Mr Pompeo did not say was that Ms Lam's hands are tied. She answers not to Hong Kong's toothless Legislative Council, but to the Communist masters in Beijing, who are running out of patience with the Hong Kongers' refusal to embrace the benefits of "democracy with Chinese characteristics". Somehow the Secretary of State managed to get through his entire statement without once uttering the words "Beijing" or "China".

Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), on the other hand, said Still-President Trump should make forceful statements on Hong Kong. Speaking in the Senate on Monday, Senator McConnell said leaders in Beijing and Hong Kong must "de-escalate." He said the administration already had "significant tools" it could use to support Hong Kong protesters. "I would encourage this president, who has seen Chinese behaviour for what it is, with clarity that others have lacked, not to shy away from speaking out on Hong Kong himself," Mr McConnell said. "The world should hear from him directly that the United States stands with these brave men and women."

He added he was working to try to bring the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act to a floor vote. The bill, which passed the House by unanimous consent, would mandate the executive branch to impose sanctions on Chinese and Hong Kong officials who carry out human rights abuses and review annually the favourable trade status that Washington grants Hong Kong. Mr McConnell has been criticized for delaying a floor vote on the bill. If he can do so now, and the bill passes the Senate (not a sure thing), it will be more than interesting to see what President Trump does with it. Nut-cutting time not just for the Hong Kong protesters but for the leader of the USA and the free world.

Footnote: Looking at the top photo Ed. has chosen for this story, I see that some of the students have obviously been paying attention in English class. As a former teacher of English to Chinese university students, seeing correct use of English in public discourse makes me quietly proud.

Hong Kong government ramps up violence vs pro-democracy protesters

As I write, in the wee hours of the morning, Hong Kong time, the city is relatively quiet. Pro-democracy protesters, the majority of them high school and college students yesterday, are licking their wounds -- literally -- after a day filled with violence and terrorism, perpetrated by the Hong Kong police to quell yet another day of anti-government protests.

For over thirteen weeks now -- a quarter of a year -- the Hong Kong "Special Administrative Region of China" has been convulsed by sometimes violent protests and mass demonstrations, in response to a proposed law by the Communist-backed administration of CEO Carrie Lam that would allow people suspected of crimes on the mainland to be extradited to face trial in Chinese courts.

Today was supposed to be back-to-school day in Hong Kong, but yesterday over 100,000 students chose to go on strike to force the puppet government not just to withdraw completely the extradition bill, but guarantee the people of Hong Kong the democratic freedoms they were promised under the "one country two systems" provisions of the agreement between Britain and China when the Brits handed Hong Kong back to China in 1997.

The student demonstrators tried to make their point peacefully -- chanting and holding up signs -- while at the same time obstructing the flow of traffic in the city-state's streets and around the airport, one of the world's busiest. Hong Kong police responded by using pepper spray against travellers on the city's Mass Transit Railway (MTR), beating them with batons regardless of whether or not they were involved in the pro-democracy demonstrations.

Radio Free Asia reported that police began beating individuals indiscriminately at the Prince Edward MTR station, attacking them with pepper spray which they were sitting quietly on trains. RFA cited video which showed that "the police, who wore the black, armored uniforms of the 'raptor' special forces, appeared to be in pursuit of protesters, but instead attacked passengers indiscriminately, the footage showed. One was a small boy who was left with head injuries." Footage appeared to show individuals, including protesters, trying to stop police from beating innocent bystanders but largely failing to prevent the violence.

Just a few minutes ago, Reuters reported that Ms Lam, speaking in last week to a group of businesspeople, said she has caused "unforgivable havoc" by igniting the political crisis engulfing the city and would quit if she had a choice. But she doesn't. Under Hong Kong's current political set-up, the Chief Executive is chosen indirectly, by a group of electors (not unlike the American Electoral College!) chosen in elections rigged to favour pro-Beijing candidates.

At the closed-door meeting, Ms Lam told the group that she now has "very limited" room to resolve the crisis because the unrest has become a national security and sovereignty issue for China amid rising tensions with the United States. "If I have a choice," she said, speaking in English, "the first thing is to quit, having made a deep apology."

She suggested that Beijing had not yet reached a turning point, and had not imposed any deadline for ending the crisis ahead of China's National Day celebrations scheduled for October 1. And, she said, China had "absolutely no plan" to deploy People's Liberation Army troops on Hong Kong streets. World leaders have been closely watching whether China will send in the military to quell the protests, as it did a generation ago in the bloody Tiananmen Square crackdown in Beijing.

Ms Lam noted, however, that she had few options once an issue had been elevated "to the national level" -- meaning the Communist Party Pollitburo in Beijing -- "to a sort of sovereignty and security level, let alone in the midst of this sort of unprecedented tension between the two big economies in the world."

Walt, spent the better (?) party of two years in Hong Kong and its twin across the bay, Shenzhen, is watching too, and is in complete sympathy with the protesters. Will our leaders, who preach democracy and freedom (except of course in their own countries) do anything to help the people of Hong Kong in their struggle to avoid total domination by the Chinese Communists? I'm sad to say I think the chances are slim and none. But stay tuned.

Walt explains the link between events in Hong Kong and Québec

The events of yesterday and today on two opposite sides of the world say something (to those who are paying attention) about the natural desire of "nations" (in the French sense of the word) to protect their culture and identity when threatened with submersion in a larger multicultural society.

At 0400 EDT on Sunday, Québec's National Assembly -- note the term -- passed, not without opposition, Bill 9, which sets out the framework for a Québec values test that all immigrant wannabes will need to pass in order to become permanent residents of la Belle Province. The new law allows the government to cancel some 18,000 applications to immigrate.

The opposition Liberals complained that since putting Bill 9 on the table in February, the Québec government has provided "no credible explanation" for doing that, but the province's Immigration Minister argued that "We are changing the immigration system in the public interest, because we have to make sure that we have an immigration tied to the needs of the labour market."

What does that mean? The opposition whines that the new test will discriminates against prospective immigrants from Third World shitholes, who don't speak French and don't have the European/American work ethic or experience. Being a truck driver in the Punjab or a street vendor in the Congo won't count for much, it seems. Nor will wanting time off to observe religious holy day.

Which brings us to another proposed law, Bill 21, which will come to a vote later today or tomorrow, since closure has been invoked to end any further argy-bargy over what has been nicknamed "the Secularism Bill" or, more tellingly, "the anti-Muslim Bill". Bill 21 is a proposed ban on the display of religious symbols in the public service, included in the proposesd Charter of Québec Values, which Québeckers have been fighting for (or against) for donkey's years.

Under the new law, anyone giving or receiving public-sector services must not display any headgear or other accessories or symbols of any religion. That includes Jewish and Christian symbols like the kippah and the crucifix, but critics whine that the clear target is Muslim women who wear the hijab, niqab or burqa. (If you're not sure what these things are, see "Hijab, niqab, burqa -- what's the difference?", WWW 28/7/10.)

Last Wednesday, the National Assembly spent more than an hour going over just one phrase — "in fact and in appearance" — in the religious symbols bill. Minority groups, legal experts, SJWs, multiculti types and (of course) United Nations human rights monitors have expressed concern that Bill 21 will institutionalize discrimination and... wait for it... racism. Be that as it may, the new régime was one of the main planks of the CAQ election platform, and Québécois voted for it, overwhelmingly, last fall. Now they're going to get what they voted for. Imagine that!

Meanwhile, in "Fragrant Harbour" (aka Hong Kong) today, hundreds of thousands took to the streets again today as the Umbrella Revolution (v.2) continues. On Saturday (local time) it appeared that the pro-Beijing puppet government of the former British colony had caved, as Chief Executive Carrie Lam announced that an extradition bill that would allow some suspects to be sent for trial in mainland China had been "suspended indefinitely". But, the pro-democracy demonstrators say, that's not the same as "withdrawn altogether and forever".

Tens of thousands of Hong Kong residents, mostly clad in black, jammed the city's streets Sunday in a vehement show of opposition to proposed legislation that has stoked fears of expanding control from Beijing. They carried signs reading "Hong Kong is not China!", and that is precisely the issue. When the perfidious British handed the colony over to the Communist Chinese in 1997, the Reds pledged that Hong Kong's "special status" would allow it to keep the Western legal, electoral and social systems and values which had been in place for over a century. Yeah... sure...

The marchers, who numbered over a million earlier last week, are demanding that Hong Kong's leader first scrap the proposed extradition law, then resign. Last week the peaceful protests degenerated into violent clashes with the police, who fired rubber bullets and teargas at the unarmed (except for umbrellas) demonstrators. Several protesters were injured and scores were arrested, in the toughest test of the territory's special status since the Communists took control.

The link between these events is that both betoken the determination of citizens of a part of a larger whole to assert their autonomy, especially when it comes to "values". "Hong Kong is not China!", its people cry, and Québécois said (in French, of course) in last October's election "Québec is not Canada!" They are both examples of a "distinct society", a loaded phrase which carries with it -- if the larger society, China or Canada, denies the special status and rights of the smaller one -- the threat of separation, perhaps even peaceful or not-so-peaceful revolution.