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.
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
On Sunday, 13 new urgent care centers (UCC) officially began operations across the six special municipalities. The purpose of the centers — which are open from 8am to midnight on Sundays and national holidays — is to reduce congestion in hospital emergency rooms, especially during the nine-day Lunar New Year holiday next year. It remains to be seen how effective these centers would be. For one, it is difficult for people to judge for themselves whether their condition warrants visiting a major hospital or a UCC — long-term public education and health promotions are necessary. Second, many emergency departments acknowledge
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
RSS