Surely no one could be surprised by the decision of the Central Standing Committee of China's National People's Congress (NPC) on Monday to bar Hong Kong's people from electing their chief executive in 2007 and all members of the Legislative Council (Legco) in 2008. After all, on April 6 the Central Standing Committee issued a binding interpretation of the Hong Kong Basic Law that said Beijing must give advance approval for any changes in the way the territory's leader and lawmakers are selected. People knew this was coming.
This turn of events -- however predictable it might have been -- was nevertheless disappointing to the people of Hong Kong. The decision was obviously highly inconsistent with Beijing's guarantee to offer Hong Kong a "high degree of autonomy" under the Joint Declaration between China and Britain over the handover of Hong Kong's sovereignty in 1997.
Also disappointed were the US and Britain, which issued statements with respect to the decision. British Foreign Minister Bill Rammell on Monday expressed his concern and the hope to meet with the Chinese ambassador to Britain. On the other hand, US State Department spokesperson Richard Boucher said that the US was "disappointed by the decision."
With all international eyes on it, Beijing remains unfazed, as usual, in facing international pressure and concerns regarding democracy and human rights issues and uses nationalism to justify itself. In fact, its initial response to the international concerns was hostile -- to say the least. For example, Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing (
While Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) pledged on Wednesday to "ultimately" allow direct election of the territory's chief executive and legislature, he gave no timeframe. The problem is it has become increasingly difficult to believe the words and promises from Beijing when it comes to democracy. Didn't the people of Hong Kong also have high hopes about the guarantee by Beijing about "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" before the handover?
At least Hong Kong had Britain to advocate its interests prior to 1997. After the handover, who is going to do that? Hong Kong Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa (董建華)? Wasn't he the one who made the recommendations upon which the Central Standing Committee of the NPC based its decision on Monday?
It is time for the world to realize that Beijing has no genuine wish to implement democracy in any part of China. In fact, it has virtually no concept of what democracy is -- as demonstrated by the statement of Qiao Xiaoyang (喬曉陽), deputy secretary-general of the NPC Central Standing Committee, on Tuesday in Hong Kong, that: "Governments who are led by the nose by public opinion are irresponsible." If this reflects the sentiment of the entire Chinese leadership regarding democracy, just about all hopes have been dashed for a democratic breakthrough in any part of China.
In fact, it is probably safe to conclude that Beijing is not only clueless about what democracy is, but it actually fears democracy. Beijing was obviously taken aback by the demonstration in Hong Kong on July 1 last year in which more than 500,000 people participated and which forced Tung to withdraw an anti-subversion bill. After that incident, Beijing probably decided it was high time to put the brakes on demands for democracy, which reinforced its decision to ban popular elections in the region in the immediate future.
Under the circumstances, the people of Taiwan should have even more appreciation for their hard-earned democracy and not be discouraged by recent political controversies over the outcome of the presidential election.
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