Hong Kong’s Chief Executive is “elected from a restricted pool of candidates supportive of the Central Government by a 1200-member Election Committee“ [1]. The Election Committee is pro-Beijing and not a democratic body.
Hong Kong’s CE is better thought of as the CPC’s emissary to Hong Kong than as a true executive.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Executive_of_Hong_Kong
Let me explain.
Excluding the current (4th) Chief Executive Carrie Lam, there have been three other Chief Executives [1], and the upshot is that two of them experienced large protests--in 2003 for 1st CE Tung Chee-hwa, in 2014 for 3rd CE Leung Chun-ying--and both could not complete their second terms due to protests.
It is common knowledge in Hong Kong that they were pressured by higher-ups for not completing their second terms as Chief Executives, in exchange for seats as vice-chairmen of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference in China: both gave ridiculous reasons to not complete their second terms to serve Hong Kong, but then went on to become vice-chairmen serving China. They were not immediately removed after the protests only to save grace for them and for CCP.
The 1st CE Tung Chee-hwa resigned in 2005, less than 2 years after the protest in 2003 and 2 years into his second term, for a ridiculous medical reason [2]; the 3rd CE Leung Chun-ying was about to run for his second term in 2017, 3 years after the Umbrella protest, only to announce in a sudden that he did not intend to run to take care of his family [3].
Now in 2019 the 4th CE Carrie Lam faces the anti-extradition protest. And we wonder what the outcome will be.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Executive_of_Hong_Kong
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tung_Chee-hwa
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leung_Chun-ying
(Arguably, the 2nd CE Donald Tsang, the only CE not facing large protests but who is serving prison time, also has his fate decided by the CCP, with the speculation that he refused some orders from China, but I digress.)
Donald Tsang was released earlier this year [0]
Is that what impeachment means? To remove someone because they've lost popular support? I thought impeachment was rather about charging a public official with some kind of crime or wrongdoing. Being unpopular isn't a crime.
Impeachment “is the process by which a legislative body levels charges against a government official” [1]. Standards vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But since the decision is made by a political body, not judges, it is ultimately a political decision.
The article you've linked to says that in Hong Kong it requires 'serious breach of law or dereliction of duty'. I can't see how becoming unpopular would meet either of those conditions?
> since the decision is made by a political body, not judges
The article you've linked to says that in Hong Kong impeachment charges are investigated by judges.
A committee chaired by a judge investigates [1]. It then recommends findings to the LC. The LC, a political body, makes the decision to impeach.
> in Hong Kong it requires 'serious breach of law or dereliction of duty'
Practically speaking, based on history and the motivations of those involved, popularity figures into impeachment processes. Being unpopular doesn’t lead to impeachment alone. But pretty much anything could fit into Hong Kong’s “dereliction of duty” standard, for instance.
In HK, the people can vote for a Chief Executive of HK, but the pool that you can vote for is now only allowed to be "pro China", this is what the umbrella revolution was protesting and sadly failed. "Universal suffrage but only with the people we let you vote for."
Today, impeachment of the Chief Executive is overtly not possible[2] since China controls whether that vote is allowed to take place with pro China people doing the voting.
By overtly, I mean I personally cannot see a way forward, but I admit, I'm very surprised to see this bill be rescinded. Tactically speaking, I would have expected the same thing from the Umbrella Revolution. Which was basically let the protestors occupy the streets and let the public become annoyed to the point where the oppressed (protestors) become the oppressors.
Why wasn't the waiting game played this time around? I'm not sure. I'm super happy they were successful in this, and I hope/pray for long term change as my heritage is from HK. But... I'm extremely skeptical.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Hong_Kong_protests [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment#Hong_Kong
As we are not Xi, we could only speculate why this time is different, that the anti-extradition protest in 2019 achieved something (the suspension of the law), unlike the Umbrella protest in 2014 which achieved effectively nothing.
One key difference is that, the 2014 Umbrella protest concerns only Hong Kong--China internal politics: other parties (US, UK, Canada, etc.) have less to say for Hong Kong's universal suffrage; meanwhile the 2019 anti-extradition protest concerns citizens of other countries, so they have a say in this particular event.
Quoting Simon Shen (in Chinese [1], section six there, translation mine + Google translate):
> VI. Diplomacy of Diaspora: The Dispute of the "Fugitive Offenders" Breaks Through the Diplomatic Missions in Hong Kong Standardized by "the Vienna Convention"
> ...
> However, the "Fugitive Offenders Ordinance" dispute is a rare opportunity for these diplomats to find reasons to comment on Hong Kong, because the regulations directly cover their own citizens and chambers of commerce in Hong Kong. With this starting point, comments are their basic responsibility and there is room for manoeuvre. It is said that the Office of the Special Commissioner of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Hong Kong will release the doubts from the collective and their meetings. One of the reasons is naturally that the SAR Government can speak at the level of the Basic Law and is not interested in the other party. The SAR Government does not seem to be interested in a local regulation covering foreign businessmen and expatriates. This has already exceeded the pure legal issue, but opened a dangerous Pandora's box because "protecting the diaspora" is well known to the international community. "Universal Key", many acts that could have been classified as "interference in internal affairs" have become crowned with such reasonable reasons. For example, the United States intervenes in Venezuela to protect the diaspora, and Russia annexes Crimea to protect the diaspora. In recent years, embassies around the country have also stepped up publicity to protect the diaspora.
> More importantly, this time the countries have made great comments on Hong Kong and set a number of precedents. In addition to the collective actions of the EU countries, the United Kingdom and Canada are also issued a "Joint Statement" by Hong Kong foreign ministers to Hong Kong, suggesting that the British will start "England after the Brexit". The possibility of the Australian-New Zealand Commonwealth is an example of other diplomatic work with Hong Kong; other diplomats seem to have a lot of cases in the past month. During the Disputes of the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance, the SAR Government has been unable to successfully dispel the doubts of various countries, and even more and more, the consulates in Hong Kong have created more working relationships because of the need for direct exchanges. The importance of this consular mission was first activated in the twenty years after the reunification. It would be almost impossible without a draft that covered all the people of the world and caused a lot of local controversy.
And from a previous discussion, some one claimed that the real reason that the 2019 protest achieved something has to do with Taiwan: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20196738
[1]: https://simonshen.blog/2019/06/16/%e5%be%9e%e5%9c%8b%e9%9a%9...
LegCo's impeachment power was dead letter law from the start - I can't think of a circumstance where the pro-Beijing camp would ever use it, short of perhaps some situation where a previously pro-Beijing chief executive has gone rogue and refuses to resign...