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
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS