There have been reports that Tung Chee-hwa (
Tung's first term lasted five years. His policy implementation was ineffective, giving him little public support, and the Hong Kong economy was in the doldrums. Despite this, he was elected -- if that is what it can be called -- to serve a second term.
Apart from vigorous support from former Chinese president Jiang Zemin (
According to Deng Xiaoping's (
Although the CCP has gradually understood what a market economy is, its one-party autocracy remains unchanged, and the party makes all decisions for the Chinese people. As China continues with its economic experiment, perhaps the contradictions of such an autocratic system are not serious enough to cause significant conflict in its young and booming market economy. However, in highly capitalist Hong Kong, such totalitarian factors are out of tune with its market economy, which enjoys a great deal of freedom. This is also why, no matter how hard Tung tried, his performance was still unable to satisfy the people of Hong Kong. The territory's people, even though they never enjoyed the sweet taste of democracy during the days of colonial rule, are now discontent with the fake "one country, two systems." So how could the people of Taiwan, who enjoy a high degree of democracy and autonomy, possibly accept this policy?
The replacement of Tung before the end of his legal term could mean that Beijing has lost faith in the chief executive's ability to govern the territory. Beijing is therefore pushing him out before the situation worsens. Nevertheless, whether Tung's successor is Chief Secretary for Administration Donald Tsang (
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