Two decades ago China and Britain reached an agreement to hand over Hong Kong to China and then implement "one country, two systems" there. After the recent issuance by the standing committee of China's National People's Congress of an interpretation of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR), that agreement has been officially broken. According to this ruling, while the manner of selecting the SAR chief executive in 2007 and members of the Legislative Council (Legco) in 2008 may be amended, the central government holds the ultimate power to decide on this amendment. The move means that the demand of the Hong Kong people for popular election of the chief executive and Legco has been rejected by China.
This not only cuts off Hong Kong's path toward democracy, but also means that China has destroyed autonomy in Hong Kong through this ruling. The balance is gradually shifting toward the "one country" and away from "two systems." Basically the illusion of "one country, two systems" has been dispelled. The Chinese dictators gave barely a second thought to junking the system in an attempt to destroy the flames of democracy and autonomy in Hong Kong.
"One country, two systems" was the brainchild of the late Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平). The central idea, as applied to Hong Kong, was to allow the colony to maintain its existing political and economic systems after it was handed back to China. In other words, Hong Kong was to continue implementation of its free market economy, growing democracy and its free way of life, sugar-coasted with flowery slogans such as "no change for 50 years," "high level of autonomy," and "having Hong Kong people rule Hong Kong."
"One country, two systems" was not only used to comfort the people of Hong Kong before the handover, but also to reassure the international community. So, the idea of "one country, two systems" was not only to resolve the problems posed by the gaps between the systems in Hong Kong and China, but also to maintain peaceful co-existence between capitalism and socialism. It was also supposed to be a role model that China could use in its unification propaganda directed toward Taiwan.
However, in the more than six years since the handover, "one country, two systems" has proven incapable of meeting the demand for democratization within Hong Kong, a trend which seriously conflicts with and challenges the autocratic nature of China itself. Beijing finally could no longer hold back and asserted its authority, shattering the "one country, two systems" model in the process.
In reality, the conflict between democratic progress in Hong Kong and Chinese totalitarianism erupted long before the handover. In the mid-1990s, then-Hong Kong governor Chris Patten had planned to speed up the process of democratization in Hong Kong, but was subjected to serious criticism and hysterical opposition by China, which labeled him "sinner of the age." After the handover, the pace of democratization in Hong Kong was thrown into reverse. The one half of Legco that is elected is chosen through a highly restricted franchise while the other half remains appointed by Beijing as, of course, is the chief executive.
As a result, even though the Democratic Party won a landslide victory in the District Council election at the end of last year, it remained incapable of becoming the legislative majority party. Under the circumstances, the calls for democratization in Hong Kong have become louder. Popular election of the chief executive in 2007 and all Legco members by 2008 is the mainstream popular will in Hong Kong. In the massive rally on July 1 last year held to oppose Article 23 of the Basic Law, more than 500,000 people showed up.
A recent survey conducted by the Chinese University of Hong Kong indicated that despite "patriotic" propaganda and an intimidation campaign staged by Beijing over the past six months, more than 60 percent of the people in Hong Kong continue to support popular election of the chief executive. Evidently, the demand for democratization in Hong Kong cannot be stopped.
China can see that the democratization campaign in Hong Kong is gaining momentum, and also is beginning to understand that "one country, two systems" has lost what little allure it ever had for the people of Taiwan. China had to choose between securing its authority in Hong Kong and maintaining a fiction that no longer could dupe its intended victims, the Taiwanese. Not surprisingly it chose authority over window-dressing and threw cold water on the flame of democracy in Hong Kong.
As indicated by an editorial published by a Hong Kong newspaper, the fact that President Chen Shui-bian (
China has had its ultimate say over the political development of Hong Kong through the ruling issued by the Standing Committee of National People's Congress. It has at the same time denied the demands for popular election of the chief executive and all member of the Legco. Article 7 of Appendix 1 to the Basic Law, as well as Appendices 2 and 3 state that after 2007, if the manner of electing the chief executive and members of the Legco is to be revised, the approval of two-thirds of all Legco members and the chief executive is needed.
Moreover, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress needs to either approve or be notified. However, according to the ruling issued by the Standing Committee, the chief executive must first submit a report to the central government, and the legal amendment must conform with the principle of gradual change and the actual situation in Hong Kong. This means that Beijing holds not only the key to initiating the amendment, but also the ultimate say so. The people of Hong Kong can only depend on the mercy of Beijing. Democracy will certainly wither in Hong Kong.
In other words, on the surface, the Standing Committee merely issued an interpretation of the Basic Law, but it has, in substance, changed the articles of the said law, accomplishing a political agenda through a legal procedure. As indicated by Democratic Party founder and Legco member Martin Lee (
During negotiations between China and Britain in 1984, the British prime minister at the time, Margaret Thatcher, questioned whether a highly totalitarian political entity could support a free and open society. Hong Kong's "one country, two systems" is now a prison cell of China's devising. It is living proof that Taiwan has made the right decision in taking a path of its own.
Yesterday’s recall and referendum votes garnered mixed results for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). All seven of the KMT lawmakers up for a recall survived the vote, and by a convincing margin of, on average, 35 percent agreeing versus 65 percent disagreeing. However, the referendum sponsored by the KMT and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on restarting the operation of the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant in Pingtung County failed. Despite three times more “yes” votes than “no,” voter turnout fell short of the threshold. The nation needs energy stability, especially with the complex international security situation and significant challenges regarding
Most countries are commemorating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II with condemnations of militarism and imperialism, and commemoration of the global catastrophe wrought by the war. On the other hand, China is to hold a military parade. According to China’s state-run Xinhua news agency, Beijing is conducting the military parade in Tiananmen Square on Sept. 3 to “mark the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II and the victory of the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression.” However, during World War II, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) had not yet been established. It
There is an old saying that if there is blood in the water, the sharks will come. In Taiwan’s case, that shark is China, circling, waiting for any sign of weakness to strike. Many thought the failed recall effort was that blood in the water, a signal for Beijing to press harder, but Taiwan’s democracy has just proven that China is mistaken. The recent recall campaign against 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, many with openly pro-Beijing leanings, failed at the ballot box. While the challenge targeted opposition lawmakers rather than President William Lai (賴清德) himself, it became an indirect
A recent critique of former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s speech in Taiwan (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” by Sasha B. Chhabra, Aug. 12, page 8) seriously misinterpreted his remarks, twisting them to fit a preconceived narrative. As a Taiwanese who witnessed his political rise and fall firsthand while living in the UK and was present for his speech in Taipei, I have a unique vantage point from which to say I think the critiques of his visit deliberately misinterpreted his words. By dwelling on his personal controversies, they obscured the real substance of his message. A clarification is needed to
RSS