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.
Weeks into the craze, nobody quite knows what to make of the OpenClaw mania sweeping China, marked by viral photos of retirees lining up for installation events and users gathering in red claw hats. The queues and cosplay inspired by the “raising a lobster” trend make for irresistible China clickbait. However, the West is fixating on the least important part of the story. As a consumer craze, OpenClaw — the AI agent designed to do tasks on a user’s behalf — would likely burn out. Without some developer background, it is too glitchy and technically awkward for true mainstream adoption,
On Monday, a group of bipartisan US senators arrived in Taiwan to support the nation’s special defense bill to counter Chinese threats. At the same time, Beijing announced that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had invited Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) to visit China, a move to make the KMT a pawn in its proxy warfare against Taiwan and the US. Since her inauguration as KMT chair last year, Cheng, widely seen as a pro-China figure, has made no secret of her desire to interact with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and meet with Xi, naming it a
A delegation of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) officials led by Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) is to travel to China tomorrow for a six-day visit to Jiangsu, Shanghai and Beijing, which might end with a meeting between Cheng and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). The trip was announced by Xinhua news agency on Monday last week, which cited China’s Taiwan Affairs Office (TAO) Director Song Tao (宋濤) as saying that Cheng has repeatedly expressed willingness to visit China, and that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Committee and Xi have extended an invitation. Although some people have been speculating about a potential Xi-Cheng
No state has ever formally recognized the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) as a legal entity. The reason is not a lack of legitimacy — the CTA is a functioning exile government with democratic elections and institutions — but the iron grip of realpolitik. To recognize the CTA would be to challenge the People’s Republic of China’s territorial claims, a step no government has been willing to take given Beijing’s economic leverage and geopolitical weight. Under international law, recognition of governments-in-exile has precedent — from the Polish government during World War II to Kuwait’s exile government in 1990 — but such recognition
RSS