On April 26, the Standing Committee of China's National People's Congress ruled that Hong Kong will not have direct elections for its leader in 2007, nor for all legislators in 2008.
Despite the fact that more than 10,000 Hong Kong people took to the streets to demand democracy on April 11, the ruling shattered hopes for greater autonomy with 156 approval votes, 1 abstention vote and none in opposition. A standing committee formulated on a non-democratic mechanism has denied the people of Hong Kong's most basic democratic right so Beijing can continue to control the political situation in Hong Kong.
Less than seven years after the handover, the late Chinese leader Deng Xiao-ping's (鄧小平) reassurance that people in Hong Kong could still go dancing and to the horse races rings hollow. The "one country, two systems" concept was put forth by Deng during his meeting with British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in September, 1982. Three months later when China revised its Constitution, the term "one country, two systems" was incorporated into Article 31 under the heading of General Principles, making it a legally binding national policy.
Surely, "one country, two systems" refers to China as one country, and the socialism in China and the capitalism in Hong Kong and Taiwan as the two systems. In light of this concept, China is a nation, while Hong Kong and Taiwan are categorized as "special administrative regions." Defined as China's local governments, Hong Kong and Taiwan are not allowed national sovereignty, or to exercise their national diplomatic and defense rights, or to declare war or sign peace treaties. From this perspective, it is hardly surprising that the Standing Committee would give a unilateral interpretation of Hong Kong's Basic Law.
Beijing has made it clear that Hong Kong's capitalist democracy is circumscribed by a cage of Chinese socialism. Hong Kong's people can go dancing, see horse racing and earn money -- as long as they do not go to the voting booth.
Having experienced three direct presidential elections, Taiwanese can hardly accept such a formula banning direct elections. It is difficult to envision how people can supervise the government if they cannot pick their own representatives. How can the most basic political rights be protected without such elections?
If we view Taiwan through the lens of the Hong Kong experience, we will no longer laugh at the martial arts star Jackie Chan (成龍), who jeered at Taiwan's presidential election as "a big joke."
Since the lifting of martial law, Taiwan has experienced many democratic reforms, such as a thorough legislative re-election and direct presidential elections. After years of efforts by democratic activists, now people's rights are protected, including the unrestricted right to express their minds freely.
Despite the commotion in the legislature, the raucous media, frequent social and political movements and obstacles to deepening a culture of democracy, people in Taiwan enjoy the rights to choose legislators and national leaders, to criticize the heads of the state at will, and to talk freely on political issues to their hearts' content. If such a lifestyle can be called "a big joke," then what should one call the Chinese rebuttal of Hong Kong's autonomy?
Chan has since said that he made that remark with a heavy heart. But in the face of Hong Kong's hampered democracy, Chan's silence pains the hearts of Taiwanese people. Hong Kong's aborted democracy is not a joke, but the same woe that a colonized Taiwan once suffered.
Xiang Yang is an associate professor of indigenous languages at National Dong Hwa University.
Translated by Wang Hsiao-wen
Taiwan aims to elevate its strategic position in supply chains by becoming an artificial intelligence (AI) hub for Nvidia Corp, providing everything from advanced chips and components to servers, in an attempt to edge out its closest rival in the region, South Korea. Taiwan’s importance in the AI ecosystem was clearly reflected in three major announcements Nvidia made during this year’s Computex trade show in Taipei. First, the US company’s number of partners in Taiwan would surge to 122 this year, from 34 last year, according to a slide shown during CEO Jensen Huang’s (黃仁勳) keynote speech on Monday last week.
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
Birth, aging, illness and death are inevitable parts of the human experience. Yet, living well does not necessarily mean dying well. For those who have a chronic illness or cancer, or are bedridden due to significant injuries or disabilities, the remainder of life can be a torment for themselves and a hardship for their caregivers. Even if they wish to end their life with dignity, they are not allowed to do so. Bih Liu-ing (畢柳鶯), former superintendent of Chung Shan Medical University Hospital, introduced the practice of Voluntary Stopping of Eating and Drinking as an alternative to assisted dying, which remains
President William Lai (賴清德) has rightly identified the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as a hostile force; and yet, Taiwan’s response to domestic figures amplifying CCP propaganda remains largely insufficient. The Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) recently confirmed that more than 20 Taiwanese entertainers, including high-profile figures such as Ouyang Nana (歐陽娜娜), are under investigation for reposting comments and images supporting People’s Liberation Army (PLA) drills and parroting Beijing’s unification messaging. If found in contravention of the law, they may be fined between NT$100,000 and NT$500,000. That is not a deterrent. It is a symbolic tax on betrayal — perhaps even a way for
RSS