For a long time, the people of Hong Kong had been regarded as interested only in the economy, since they showed relatively little interest in political activities. Apart the election held right before the handover of Hong Kong in 1997, there was virtually no attempt by the people to have a say in their political future. But their performance since July 1 has been most refreshing. Their passion for political participation has apparently come alive overnight. Why? The reason lies in the legislative implementation of Article 23 of the Basic Law, which would severely curtail people's freedoms, democracy and human rights and cause a great deal of uncertainty about the future.
The handover of Hong Kong to China was settled through direct negotiations between China and the UK. The people of Hong Kong had absolutely no say in this process. It was not until the term of the last British governor, Chris Patten, that structural reforms were made to allow for popular elections. However, China accused Britain of breaching the Sino-UK pact by enacting the reforms and promised to reverse them after the 1997 handover. But in the process of rolling back the democratic reforms, the foundations of Hong Kong's current problems were laid.
Everyone knows that in the six short years since the handover, Hong Kong's allure as the "Pearl of Orient" has dimmed. In the minds of China's leaders, it had long been decided that Shanghai was to replace Hong Kong as the country's economic powerhouse. Now the majority of Chinese capital is channeled into developing Shanghai.
The situation in Hong Kong has completely changed. Real estate prices have fallen by 60 to 70 percent since the handover. The manufacturing sector quickly moved north, causing the unemployment rate to soar to 8 percent. Against the backdrop of serious economic decline, the Special Administrative Region (SAR) government nevertheless had to follow Beijing's demands for the legislative implementation of Article 23 of the Basic Law, which seeks to strip the people of their freedoms, democracy and human rights. It isn't hard to see why this move generated resentment among the people.
The people of Hong Kong know very well that enactment of the so-called anti-subversion bill, regardless of how much the SAR government water it down, will only aggravate Hong Kong's problems, and they would have no chance to undo the damage in the future.
As a result, as many as 500,000 people turned out to demonstrate on July 1. Even the Beijing leadership was taken aback. On July 9, another 50,000 people besieged the Legislative Council, demanding popular election of the SAR government. On July 13, 20,000 people took to the streets to demand a timetable for democratic reforms, so that the third chief executive of the SAR government and the Legislative Council would be elected by popular elections in 2007 and 2008. This series of protests clearly did not occur arbitrarily or randomly.
These demands are very important in the protection of human rights. According to the current election system, the chief executive is elected by a committee of 800 members, all hand-picked by Beijing. At most, half of the members of the legislature are elected by the public. Furthermore, any amendments to the way the chief executive and the legislature are elected can only take place after 2007, and then only with the approval of at least two-thirds of the legislature, the chief executive and the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. Bluntly put, how much democracy Hong Kong can enjoy in the future is entirely up to Beijing. To avoid the development of a democracy movement in China, Beijing would of course prefer democracy in Hong Kong to materialize later rather than sooner.
What will become of the Hong Kong public's demand for greater democracy? Only time will tell. However, the experience of Hong Kong has taught Taiwan a very important lesson: the true nature of the so-called "one country, two systems" model.
The people of Hong Kong have now finally realized that, as a result of their failure to stand up for their rights before the 1997 handover, they must now pay an even greater price for these rights. Those who passionately welcomed the handover because of the Beijing-orchestrated stock and real-estate market boom that came with it, were deluding themselves about the future of Hong Kong.
After the controversies surrounding Article 23, the people of Taiwan have become even less interested in "one country, two systems." But it is not just this flawed model that people should be wary of. China also creates a mirage of prosperity to lure investment across the Taiwan Strait. As well as pressing for the relaxation of rules on investing in China, some people even claim that these investments can revive Taiwan's economy. This will only allow China to repeat the trick it played in the handover of Hong Kong.
Taiwan is a democratic country. People here of course feel great respect for the democratic movements in Hong Kong. However, the status of Taiwan and that of Hong Kong should not be compared. People should avoid becoming entranced by "Greater China" nationalism, which would only further complicate the cross-strait relationship. Look at Hong Kong and then think about Taiwan. The more than 23 million people here must unite in their fight to defend the sovereignty of Taiwan, and to always follow the "Taiwan First" principle, not just in terms of national identification but also in attempts to revive economy. While the demands of the Hong Kong people for democracy deserve recognition, their rights would not be under threat now had they shown an interest in them before 1997.
In the past half century, people here have enjoyed prosperous and stable lives. Some believe that this will continue, and have therefore lost their drive to work hard, causing Taiwan's economy to lose much of its momentum. Worse yet, some people believe that since things are not looking as good as before, and with the Chinese economy growing rapidly, Taiwanese capital can make the greatest gains by being invested in China. Such thinking could be lethal to Taiwan. If this mentality continues to permeate society, even if Taiwan rejects the "one country, two systems," it will be unable to avoid falling into another Chinese trap.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
As the highest elected official in the nation’s capital, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) is the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) candidate-in-waiting for a presidential bid. With the exception of Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕), Chiang is the most likely KMT figure to take over the mantle of the party leadership. All the other usual suspects, from Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) to New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) to KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) have already been rejected at the ballot box. Given such high expectations, Chiang should be demonstrating resolve, calm-headedness and political wisdom in how he faces tough
RSS