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
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