Before its takeover of Hong Kong, Beijing promised the people of Hong Kong and the international community the following things.
First, China would abide by the "one country, two systems" model, under which Hong Kong would be allowed to maintain political, economic and social systems different from China's for at least 50 years. Second, Hong Kong would be ruled by Hong Kong people, meaning that, according to the Basic Law, the chief executive and Legislative Council members would be locally elected, and would not be officials appointed by China.
The reason that the late Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping (
Since its return to China in July 1997, the situation in Hong Kong has deteriorated from the time when it was a British colony. Although people still dance and gamble on horses in Hong Kong, business has been hollowed out, the economy is sinking, unemployment is soaring, real estate prices are falling sharply and personal assets are shrinking. People are unhappy with Beijing-appointed Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa's (董建華) performance. However, despite Tung's approval rating of not much more than 10 percent, he is still firmly backed by Beijing.
As the Chinese government has kept none of its promises, 500,000 Hong Kong people took to the streets on July 1 last year. They protested the Tung administration's plan to force the passage of legislation based on Article 23 of the Basic Law, aimed at restricting people's freedom. Under such pressure, Beijing could not but order the local government to withdraw the bill.
On Jan. 1, hundreds of thousands of people once again marched through downtown Hong Kong to ask for democracy. They demanded that the chief executive be directly elected. They did not want a candidate appointed by Beijing and elected via indirect elections. They also requested that all seats in the Legislative Council be filled through direct popular elections.
Beijing ignored these appeals.
Beijing's new restrictions on Hong Kong's self-rule policy means that many Democratic Party members, such as legislators Martin Lee (李柱銘) and Emily Lau (劉慧卿), will not qualify for the next legislative election.
Why is China so afraid of Hong Kong's democracy? Some believe that China's leaders are worried that the democratization of Hong Kong and Taiwan will advance political reform in China, encouraging the Chinese to demand direct elections for mayors, provincial governors, representatives to the congress and even president.
The Beijing authorities have an indescribable fear of real democracy. They believe in one-party dictatorship with political power in the hands of a few. The "centralized democracy" they have advocated is nothing but a gimmick that facilitates the attempt of the few to exercise control over the majority.
Unfortunately, Hong Kong democracy advocates, such as Lee and Lau, still support the "one country, two systems" model and oppose Taiwan's independence.
Hopefully, they will come to understand that the existence of a democratic Taiwan is beneficial to Hong Kong because it places some restrictions on Chinese actions in Hong Kong.
Absurdly, some people in Taiwan also support the "one country, two systems" model. But just look at what has happened in Hong Kong over the past few years. Beijing's promises are completely worthless. In view of the Hong Kong example, I call on Taiwanese people to open their eyes.
Parris Chang is a Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
Translated by Jennie Shih
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS