In reaction to the lack of autonomy and democracy under the so-called "one country, two systems" formula, over half a million people in Hong Kong took to the streets on July 1, a march that coincided with the anniversary of the former British colony's return to China. A clear and unified message was sent to the Chinese leadership -- return power to the people, fight for democracy.
This was not the first time that the people have expressed their strong dissatisfaction with the Beijing government. A year ago, a demonstration by 500,000 residents protested China's attempt to impose "national security" laws that would have curtailed basic freedoms of expression and human rights, and dispelled any illusions about Beijing's "one country, two systems."
The recent gathering displayed the growing demand for the Chinese leadership to reexamine the "one country, two systems" formula in relation to Hong Kong. The model was designed originally as tool to brainwash the world that Hong Kong and Taiwan could be unified under the "one China" principle with sustainable autonomy. Now the truth deconstructs the fantasy that democracy would never be sacrificed under authoritarian rule.
What went wrong with the "one country, two systems" illusion? The talk about preserving government structure of Hong Kong -- or Taiwan -- and not appointing local authorities was just that: talk. Hong Kong's Legislative Council attempted to revise the "Electoral Laws on the Chief of the Special Administration Region" two years ago -- and ended up granting the Beijing government the right to dismiss the chief at its own will.
To what extent have Taiwanese people helped bring about the decline of the "one China" myth? The Taiwanese can elect their own president through a democratic process and choose another political party to replace the one they don't like. In Hong Kong, the chief executive needs an imperial order from the Beijing government to rule and he or she can be sacked by Beijing at any time.
What is the implication of the July 1 demonstration on the future democratization of China? The establishment of a liberal democracy in China is unlikely in the foreseeable future. Even though the world anticipated a growing move toward democracy following China's recent political succession, the new leadership, led by President Hu Jintao (
While some anticipated a new look in China's new generation of leadership, Hu reiterated the importance of abiding the so-call "Three Represents" of former president Jiang Zemin (
Can "political incrementalism" become the path for China's democratization? Political reform based on such gradualism will face a great deal of challenges if it does not come up with more economic openness.
As China becomes more incorporated into the world trade regime, economic interdependence may heighten, rather than defuse, political tensions between Beijing and the outside world.
But dependence also means vulnerability. Since China is a country that has suffered from a "century of national humiliation" and is eager to regain it's national pride, its leaders are naturally inclined to "control what they depend on [from abroad] or to lessen the extent of their dependency." This is the real face of today's China. The "one country, two systems" model is just a dead end. The world must deal with a growing, but potentially unstable, China.
Liu Kuan-teh is a Taipei-based political commentator.
TRANSLATED BY Lin Ya-ti
When US budget carrier Southwest Airlines last week announced a new partnership with China Airlines, Southwest’s social media were filled with comments from travelers excited by the new opportunity to visit China. Of course, China Airlines is not based in China, but in Taiwan, and the new partnership connects Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport with 30 cities across the US. At a time when China is increasing efforts on all fronts to falsely label Taiwan as “China” in all arenas, Taiwan does itself no favors by having its flagship carrier named China Airlines. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is eager to jump at
The muting of the line “I’m from Taiwan” (我台灣來欸), sung in Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese), during a performance at the closing ceremony of the World Masters Games in New Taipei City on May 31 has sparked a public outcry. The lyric from the well-known song All Eyes on Me (世界都看見) — originally written and performed by Taiwanese hip-hop group Nine One One (玖壹壹) — was muted twice, while the subtitles on the screen showed an alternate line, “we come here together” (阮作伙來欸), which was not sung. The song, performed at the ceremony by a cheerleading group, was the theme
Secretary of State Marco Rubio raised eyebrows recently when he declared the era of American unipolarity over. He described America’s unrivaled dominance of the international system as an anomaly that was created by the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War. Now, he observed, the United States was returning to a more multipolar world where there are great powers in different parts of the planet. He pointed to China and Russia, as well as “rogue states like Iran and North Korea” as examples of countries the United States must contend with. This all begs the question:
In China, competition is fierce, and in many cases suppliers do not get paid on time. Rather than improving, the situation appears to be deteriorating. BYD Co, the world’s largest electric vehicle manufacturer by production volume, has gained notoriety for its harsh treatment of suppliers, raising concerns about the long-term sustainability. The case also highlights the decline of China’s business environment, and the growing risk of a cascading wave of corporate failures. BYD generally does not follow China’s Negotiable Instruments Law when settling payments with suppliers. Instead the company has created its own proprietary supply chain finance system called the “D-chain,” through which
RSS